Brown v. People
| Decision Date | 10 April 1877 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | William R. Brown v. The People |
Heard April 3, 1877
Error to St. Joseph Circuit.
Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered. An order entered also for the surrender of the defendant to the sheriff of the county of St. Joseph.
O. J Fast, S. C. Coffinberry, and J. B. Shipman, for plaintiff in error.
Otto Kirchner, Attorney General, for the People.
OPINION
Plaintiff in error was lately convicted of the crime of rape, charged to have been committed in the evening of June 29, 1876, on Mary Jane Miller, who was between seventeen and eighteen years of age. She had been residing with her parents near Burr Oak, but some ten days or a fortnight before this occurrence had been taken into the family of Mr. Henry W. Laird to do housework for wages. A married sister, Mrs. Baker, resided within about a half a mile.
At the time in question Mr. Laird's family embraced several young men engaged as farm hands, and among them were his two sons, the plaintiff in error, and two others.
The prosecutrix alleged that on the evening mentioned she went to her bed-room up stairs, fastened the door, retired to bed and soon fell asleep, but awoke in a short time and found plaintiff in error in bed with her, and that he then and there outraged her.
The details of her relation need not be repeated here. She further alleged that plaintiff in error, after consummating the act, left, and that in a very short time Gilbert Laird also entered the room and forcibly violated her person; that she made no attempt to leave the room and made no outcry; that she went to her sister's, Mrs. Baker's, the next morning, and made complaint.
The plaintiff in error and Gilbert Laird respectively admitted the acts of intercourse, but claimed they were with her assent or acquiescence. The case depended upon whether she was forced or not. There was no other question in dispute. An objection is made that the court allowed Mrs. Baker to relate the particulars detailed to her by the prosecutrix when complaining to her the next morning. In view of the shape assumed by the case and the character of the testimony of Mrs. Baker, of which complaint is made, I think the objection hardly tenable.
As reported in the record, Mrs. Baker barely testified that the prosecutrix claimed that the plaintiff in error and Gilbert Laird forced her the evening before in her chamber. It may be that a statement of this kind might not be proper in some cases, but I am not prepared to say it was error to admit it here. There is no occasion to dwell upon it.--Burt v. The State, 23 Ohio St. 394.
As already observed, the vital question for the jury was whether the admitted act of intercourse was by force and against the will of the prosecutrix, or whether, on the other hand, it was by her will and consent. The jury were required to be satisfied beyond...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sorrells v. United States
...is the case with regard to prosecutions for rape: Reg. v. Fletcher, Bell, 63; 8 Cox, C. C. 131; Com. v. McDonald, 110 Mass. 405; Brown v. People, 36 Mich. 203; State v. Burgdorf, 53 Mo. 65; Walter v. State, 40 Ala. 325; to prosecutions for highway robbery: Rex v. McDaniel, Fost. 121, 128; L......
-
Henderson v. Bannan
...held that if there has been "consent by the prosecutrix during any part of the act" the offense of rape cannot be committed. Brown v. People, 1877, 36 Mich. 203. In Michigan rape cases the court must, if requested by counsel, instruct the jury on each of the three cognate offenses of rape, ......
-
United States v. Jackson
...Mich. 258, 3 N.W.2d 266, 267; that it was essential that there be "no consent by the prosecutrix during any part of the act," Brown v. People, 36 Mich. 203, 205; and that specific intent, where an essential element, might be negatived by proof of voluntary intoxication, People v. Guillett, ......
-
State v. Werner
... ... uninfluenced by his previous opinion, he should be rejected ... 1 Thompson on Trials, section 83; People v ... Wilwarth, 156 N.Y. 566; State v. Riley, 78 P ... 1001; People v. Suesser, 64 P. 1095 ... A child ... witness with no ... 185; State v. Watson, 46 N.W. 868; State v ... Hutchinson, 64 N.W. 611; State v. Peterson, 82 ... N.W. 329; 4 Blk. Com., section 213; Brown v. People, ... 36 Mich. 203; 2 Crim. Reports, 586; People v ... Goulette, 45 N.W. 1124; McCombs v. State, 8 Ohio 643 ... ...