De Groat v. People
| Decision Date | 17 April 1878 |
| Citation | 39 Mich. 124 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Austin G. DeGroat v. The People |
Opinion Filed June 21, 1878
Error to Ionia.
Criminal information for incest.
Conviction reversed, and an order entered for the prisoner's discharge on the argument.
Smith & Sessions for plaintiff in error.
Attorney General Otto Kirchner for The People.
The plaintiff in error, on what seems to us a most improbable story told under oath by his daughter, a child under the age of ten, was convicted of having committed the crime of incest with her. We cannot review the conviction upon the facts, but the question whether in law the crime of incest was possible under the circumstances is made by the record, and requires determination.
By statute of this State it is provided that "If any person shall ravish and carnally know any female of the age of ten years or more, by force and against her will, or shall unlawfully and carnally know and abuse any female child under the age of ten years," he shall be punished, etc. Comp L., § 7529. In this manner the offense of rape is defined, and it will be seen that in the case of a female child under the age of ten years, the want of consent is immaterial. See People v. McDonald, 9 Mich. 150. It is manifest then, that if the girl's statement is worthy of belief, the defendant was guilty of the crime of rape. It only remains to be seen whether the same facts will support indifferently the charge of rape and the charge of incest.
The statute for the punishment of incest provides that "All persons, being within the degree of consanguinity within which marriages are prohibited, or declared by law to be incestuous and void, who shall intermarry with each other, or who shall commit adultery or fornication with each other, shall be punished," etc. Comp. L., § 7705. There was of course in this case neither intermarriage nor adultery, and the question is whether that can be called fornication which is accomplished by force on the part of the male, or at least without consent on the part of the female.
In People v. Jenness, 5 Mich. 305, 321, it was said by Mr. Justice Christiancy that "this offense of incest can only be committed by the concurrent act of two persons of opposite sexes; and the assent or concurrence of the one is as essential to the commission of the offense as that of the other." This we believe presents the legal view of the offense...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hamey
...consented, in order to constitute seduction. That the instruction was erroneous as to the proof in seduction, we have no doubt. De Groat v. People, 39 Mich. 124, was decided upon the ground that in incest both parties must consent, under the statute of that state, and as there was evidence ......
-
The State v. Hamey
...consented, in order to constitute seduction. That the instruction was erroneous as to the proof in seduction we have no doubt. DeGroat v. People, 39 Mich. 124, was decided the ground that in incest both parties must consent, under the statute of that State, and as there was evidence of forc......
-
State v. Winslow
... ... might say it was the defendant's act that caused the ... condition of the prosecutrix as described by the witness. ( ... People v. Stratton, 141 Cal. 604, 75 P. 166; ... Commonwealth v. Lynes, 142 Mass. 577, 8 N.E. 408, 56 ... Am. Rep. 709.) ... 3. Mary ... consent. It seems, under some statutes, it has been held that ... he cannot be so convicted. (De Groat v. People, 39 ... Mich. 124; State v. Jarvis, 20 Ore. 437, 26 P. 302, ... 23 Am. St. [30 Utah 408] Rep. 141; State v. Ellis, ... 74 Mo. 385, 41 ... ...
-
Douglas v. State, 59084.
...for the consequences of his own act, and his own guilt does not depend upon the conduct or mental condition of another.”). DeGroat v. People, 39 Mich. 124 (1878), on which Douglas relies, and State v. Jarvis, 20 Or. 437, 26 P. 302 (1891), are the exceptions to the rule established by the ca......