Commonwealth v. Hussey
| Decision Date | 25 November 1892 |
| Citation | 32 N.E. 362,157 Mass. 415 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. HUSSEY et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
This was an indictment charging the defendants jointly with the crime of adultery. Upon trial, the testimony for the commonwealth tended to show that the defendants, upon the day named in the indictment, were seen in bed, each of them partially undressed, and that they were in the act of having sexual intercourse with each other, but that they were interrupted by the entrance of the officers. The defendants requested the court to instruct the jury that, in order to convict the defendants, they must find that the act of sexual intercourse was completed by emission. The court declined to give this instruction, and instructed the jury that they would be warranted in finding a verdict of guilty if they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence that by the consent of each defendant there had been a penetration of the body of the female defendant by the person of the male defendant, and that it was not necessary for the commonwealth to prove, further, that there was an emission. To the ruling and refusal of the court to rule as requested the defendants duly excepted.
W.H. Moody, for the Commonwealth.
Brickett & Poor, for defendants.
We are of opinion that the definition of what constitutes carnal knowledge of the body of a woman must be the same in prosecutions for adultery as in prosecutions for rape, and that, according to the weight of authority, the instructions given in the present case were correct. Com. v. Squires, 97 Mass. 59. See Com. v. Roosnell, 143 Mass. 32, 8 N.E. 747; Comstock v. State, 14 Neb. 205, 15 N.W. 355; State v Shields, 45 Conn. 256; Osgood v. State, 64 Wis. 472, 25 N.W. 529; Waller v. State, 40 Ala. 325; People v. Crowley, 102 N.Y. 234, 6 N.E. 384; 9 Geo. IV. c. 31,§ 18; 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, § 63; Bish.Crim.Law, §§ 1127-1132; 1 East, P.C. 436-440; Reg. v. Jordan, 9 Carr. & P. 118; 3 Greenl.Ev. § 210.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Gricus
...In either event, the murder would be murder in the first degree. And although penetration is essential to rape (Commonwealth v. Hussey, 157 Mass. 415, 32 N.E. 362;Commonwealth v. MeCan, 277 Mass. 199, 203, 178 N.E. 633, 78 A.L.R. 1208), it does not follow that the ‘commission’ of the rape e......
-
Com. v. Gallant
...U.S. 1001, 79 S.Ct. 1143, 3 L.Ed.2d 1032 (1959); Commonwealth v. McCan, 277 Mass. 199, 203, 178 N.E. 633 (1931); Commonwealth v. Hussey, 157 Mass. 415, 416, 32 N.E. 362 (1892); R. Perkins, Criminal Law 154-156 (2d ed. Similarly, the definition of "unnatural sexual intercourse" must be taken......
-
Commonwealth v. Gricus
... ... forcible sexual intercourse with her against her will, or in ... stilling her outcries during such intercourse. In either ... event, the murder would be murder in the first degree. And ... although penetration is essential to rape (Commonwealth ... v. Hussey, 157 Mass. 415; Commonwealth v ... McCan, 277 Mass. 199 , 203), it does not follow that the ... "commission" of the rape ends the instant ... penetration ceases. Even though the killing took place after ... that instant, if the killing was connected with or incident ... to the rape, and took ... ...
-
State v. McGruder
...143; Com. v. Thomas, 1 Va. Cas. 307;State v. Shields, 45 Conn. 256;Comstock v. State, 14 Neb. 205, 15 N. W. 355; Com. v. Hussey (Mass.) 32 N. E. 362, 34 Am. St. Rep. 270; Osgood v. State, 64 Wis. 472, 25 N. W. 529;Rodgers v. State, 30 Tex. App. 510, 17 S. W. 1077. Contra, see State v. Gray,......