Commonwealth v. Bell
| Decision Date | 25 February 1895 |
| Docket Number | 286 |
| Citation | 166 Pa. 405,31 A. 123 |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. William Bell, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued October 8, 1894
Appeal No. 286, Oct. T., 1894, by defendant, from judgment of Q.S Armstrong Co., Dec. T., 1893, No. 41, on verdict of guilty. Affirmed.
This was an indictment for incestuous fornication. Before RAYBURN P.J.
At the trial the prosecution made the following offer:
Mr McCain: The commonwealth offers to prove by this witness "That she is the daughter of William Bell, the defendant, and that as such he had illicit intercourse with her within two years last past, and that on frequent other occasions prior to that time he has had illicit intercourse, and has made improper solicitations, and has had carnal connection, and showing the relationship which exists, we propose to show the declarations of the witness as to his solicitations; and further, give her declarations as to his having had connection with her from time to time up until within the last year or fifteen months."
Mr. Leason: The counsel for the defendant objects to the witness testifying to any transaction, except those which have occurred within two years last past. The balance of the proposition is objected to as incompetent and irrelevant.
The Court: We will overrule the objection and admit the evidence, but we will confine the commonwealth to the producing of evidence going to show the commission of the offence charged within the statutory period. [1]
Mr. McCain: We would like to be heard on this matter before your honor makes a decision.
Mr. McCain: Laura, is your mother living? A. No, sir, she is not living. Q. When did she die? A. Why, she died when I was only nine years old, when she died. Q. Who composed the family -- what other children were there? A. Why, four sisters and one brother, five with myself. Q. Were you the eldest? A. No, sir, I had a sister older than me. Q. Is she living? A. No, sir, she is dead. Q. Whereabouts did you live, -- where was your home? A. My home was on the other side of Rural Village. Q. Cowanshannock township? A. Yes, sir. Q. Your father and yourself and four others were the family, is that it? A. Yes, sir. Q. What were your sisters' and brother's names? A. My eldest sister's name was Nannie, my name is Laura, my brother's name is Lee, he comes between us, and I have a sister Martha, Clara and Lizzie. Q. Laura, I wish you would state to the court and jury if you were in the habit of attending church or school? A. No, sir. Q. Will you state why you were not permitted to go to church or school?
Mr. Leason: We object as incompetent and irrelevant.
Mr. Snyder: It is for the purpose of showing the influence of the father exercised over his child.
Mr. Leason: It is perfectly irrelevant in this case.
The Court: We will overrule the objection and give you an exception and sealed bill. [2]
Mr. McCain: Now, Laura, will you state to the court and jury if your father refused to allow you to go to church and school?
Mr. Leason: We object to that question as leading.
The Court: It is somewhat leading.
Mr. McCain: Will you state to the court and jury what reason he gave, if any, why he would not permit you to go to church or school?
Mr. Leason: We object to that.
The Court: Ascertain first whether there was any reason given by her father.
Mr. McCain: Now, Laura, will you state to the court and jury if your father objected to your going to church or school, or social gatherings? A. Yes, sir, he did. Q. Now, did he give any reason for doing so? A. Yes, sir, he did.
Mr. Leason: We object.
Mr. McCain: Now, Laura, will you state to the court and jury what reasons, if any, he gave for not allowing you to go to church or school or any social gathering?
Mr. Leason: We object to this unless it occurred within two years.
Mr. McCain: We propose to show that his influence was that he would not permit her to go to church or any place without she would concede to his requests.
The Court: Proceed.
Mr. Leason: Let the counsel make a proposition of it.
The Court: We are only permitting them to show the circumstances under which these people lived and what control he had over his daughter.
Mr. Leason: Defendant's counsel object to the testimony of the witness testifying to any acts or conduct beyond two years from the date of the finding of the bill of indictment in this case, as incompetent and irrelevant.
The Court: We will overrule the objection, grant you an exception and sealed bill. [3]
Q. When you was in the family way with the second child what, if anything, did he propose to you in order to get away with the child?
Mr. Leason: It seems to me this is taking a wider range than even the narrow bounds in which the court permitted it at all. The question is objected to as incompetent and irrelevant; and the act of fornication here would be a separate and distinct offence, separately and distinctly indictable.
The Court: We think that under the ruling that we have made that you could ask the question. We will overrule the objection and give you an exception and sealed bill. [4]
Mr. McCain: Laura, did you ever tell your brother and sisters of his conduct towards you?
Mr. Leason: We object to that. We ask the counsel to have a proposition on the record.
Mr. McCain: We propose to show by the witness on the stand that at the time or shortly after these connections were had by her father she communicated these facts to her brother and sisters, for the purpose of corroborating her statement to show that it is no fabrication, and is part of the res gesta.
Mr. Leason: Counsel for the defendant objects to the testimony; it does not propose to disclose any declarations had within the time limited by the statute of limitations, two years prior to the finding of the bill of indictment; second place, it is not that character of a case, she being an accomplice, in which her declaration can be given in evidence to sustain her testimony on the witness stand. Also as incompetent and irrelevant.
The Court: If the declarations proposed to be shown by the witness are declarations made by her at the time, or immediately after the time of the commission of the alleged offence in October, last fall a year, they will be permitted to be given; but any other than that will not. We will grant the defendant an exception and sealed bill. [5]
Mr. McCain: Will you state if, after your father had connection with you in October, that is the last time stated, did you tell your brother and sisters at or about that time, about it? A. No, sir, I did not just then but I did 5 or 6 months after that; I told my two sisters.
The Court: Do not state it then.
Mr. McCain: We propose to ask her if her father did not say to her, "If anybody comes to ask you about this, you must say you were caught down in the woods," and afterwards suggested a name to her.
The Court: Proceed.
Mr. McCain: Just state now to the court and jury --
Mr. Leason: Make a proposition, what you propose to prove.
Mr. McCain: We propose to prove by the witness on the stand that her father, William Bell, the defendant, suggested to her while pregnant, and before the birth of her child, that if interrogated about it she must state to any one asking her, that she was caught in the woods by some man who had connection with her and she thereby became pregnant.
Mr. Leason: The offer is objected to as incompetent and irrelevant.
The Court: We will overrule the objection and give you an exception and sealed bill. [6]
Mr. McCain: The defendants having asked the witness on the stand in their cross-examination as to a conversation had with her grandmother in regard to William Hotham being the father of the second child, the witness not having an opportunity to explain, we now ask the witness to explain and give the conversation as it occurred.
Mr. Leason: It is incompetent and irrelevant to affect the guilt of the defendant, it not being alleged that he was present at the conversation or took any part therein.
The Court: We will overrule the objection and give you an exception and sealed bill. [6]
Mr. McCain: We propose to show by this witness the facts and circumstances corroborative of the testimony of the witness just preceded, Laura Bell, for the purpose of corroboration.
Mr. Leason: The witness preceding having testified to but a single offence within the statute of limitations, which is within two years from the day of the finding of the bill in this case, the defendant objects to the witness testifying to any act that occurred prior to that date.
The Court: We will overrule the objection and give you an exception and seal a bill. [7]
Q. Mr Graden, I wish you would state to the court and jury, if you know whether or not Laura Bell, here, was permitted to go out to any socials of any kind, or to church or school? A. She was out very little that I know of; I have seen her in my lifetime I believe two or three times at church at night. I am not out at night myself, but so far as I can understand she has not been out. Q. Do you attend this church that is near their place there? A. Yes, sir. Q. How often were you there, Mr. Graden? A. Well, I am there middling regular. Q. In the last nine or ten years how often have you seen Laura Bell there? A. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Battles v. State
...State v. Pippin, 88 N. C. 646; State v. Guest, 100 N. C. 410, 6 S. E. 253; State v. Dukes, 119 N. C. 782, 25 S. E. 786; Commonwealth v. Bell, 166 Pa. 405, 31 Atl. 123; State v. Potter, 52 Vt. 33; Crane v. People, 65 Ill. App. 492; State v. Briggs, 68 Iowa, 416, 27 N. W. 358; State v. Hender......
-
Skidmore v. State
...80 Mich. 576, 45 N. W. 585; People v. Jenness, 5 Mich. 305; State v. Pippin, 88 N. C. 646; State v. Kemp, 87 N. C. 538; Com. v. Bell, 166 Pa. 405, 31 Atl. 123; State v. Reynolds, 48 S. C. 384, 26 S. E. 679; State v. De Masters, 15 S. D. 581, 90 N. W. 852; Burnett v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 86......
-
Com. v. Purcell
...1369, 1376 (1980), quoting Commonwealth v. Leppard, 271 Pa.Super. 317, 319, 413 A.2d 424, 425 (1979), quoting Commonwealth v. Bell, 166 Pa. 405, 412, 31 A. 123, 124 (1895). See also: Commonwealth v. Thek, supra 376 Pa.Super. at 402 n. 9, 546 A.2d at 89 n. 9; Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 343 P......
-
Com. v. Dunkle
...Commonwealth v. Fuller, 479 Pa. 353, 388 A.2d 693 (1978). One such limited circumstance is a prosecution for incest. Commonwealth v. Bell, 166 Pa. 405, 31 A. 123 (1895). The Bell Court held that evidence of a prior illicit relationship between the parties is admissible if "it is one of a se......