Commonwealth v. Bakeman

• Decision Date: 23 November 1881
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: Commonwealth v. Isaac Bakeman & another

131 Mass. 577

Commonwealth v. Isaac Bakeman & another

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

November 23, 1881

Hampshire. Indictment alleging that the defendants, Isaac Bakeman and Margaret Brooks, a married woman, on July 5 1880, at Northampton, "did commit the crime of adultery with each other, by then and there having carnal knowledge of the bodies of each other." Trial in the Superior Court before Dewey, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows:

The government introduced evidence tending to show that on the day named in the indictment Bakeman was seen dragging Brooks on the ground into a lot, and they were afterwards seen in the act of sexual intercourse. Brooks testified that she had been drinking during the day prior to the time when Bakeman was seen with her; that she had become so drunk that she did not know all that happened to her; and that Bakeman had no sexual connection with her. Bakeman also testified that he had no sexual connection with her, and that she was not intoxicated; and there was other evidence on this point.

Upon this evidence, Bakeman contended that Brooks was so drunk and stupefied that she was incapable of any voluntary participation in the alleged act of adultery; and that, if it was not adultery on her part, it was not adultery on his part; that it was as to him either rape or assault and battery; and that for either of these offences he could not be convicted on this indictment. He also asked the judge to instruct the jury as follows: "If the defendant Brooks had become so stupefied with liquor that she was not capable of voluntary action or of knowing that sexual connection was being had with her, or of resisting sexual connection, then she cannot be convicted of adultery unless she drank the liquor for the purpose of making herself unconscious and the less capable of resisting sexual contact. And if, while she was in this state, the defendant Bakeman had sexual connection with her, taking advantage of her stupefied condition, he cannot be convicted of adultery; his crime is either rape or assault and battery." The judge gave substantially the first sentence of the instruction asked for; refused to give the second; and instructed the jury that if they found that Bakeman had sexual connection with Brooks though she was in the state of stupefaction claimed, he might be convicted on this indictment.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty against Bakeman, and disagreed as to Brooks; and Bakeman alleged exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

C. Delano, for Bakeman.

C. H. Barrows, Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.

Allen J. Lord & Devens, JJ., absent.

OPINION

Allen J.

The indictment charges a joint act...