Harris v. United States
| Decision Date | 08 November 1920 |
| Docket Number | 3384. |
| Citation | 269 F. 481 |
| Parties | HARRIS v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Submitted October 5, 1920.
Appeal from Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
Robert I. Miller and J. A. O'Shea, both of Washington, D.C., for appellant.
J. E Laskey, U.S. Atty., and L. R. Mason, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Washington, D.C.
Appeal from a judgment of conviction in the Supreme Court of the District on an indictment charging the appellant with having carnally known a female child 9 years old.
The child testified to the details of a series of improper advances made by appellant, including the occurrence of November 24, 1918, upon which the indictment is based. After she had been taken to the House of Detention, on November 28th following, she 'told about those occurrences' to Mrs. Van Winkle, a policewoman. Thereupon, over the objection and exception of the appellant, the mother of the child was permitted to testify as to a disclosure to her of the same occurrences by the child on the evening of the day following the disclosure to the policewoman, and this is assigned as error.
The general rule undoubtedly is that the prosecutrix may testify as to whether she made complaint of the injury, and when and to whom, 'yet the particular facts which she stated are not admissible in evidence, except when elicited in cross-examination, or by way of confirming her testimony after it has been impeached.' 3 Greenl. on Ev. par. 213; Roney v.U.S., 43 App.D.C. 533; People v. Scattura, 238 Ill. 315, 87 N.E. 332; Parker v. State, 67 Md 329, 10 A. 219, 1 Am.St.Rep. 387. And if the complaint is made under such circumstances, in point of time and surrounding circumstances, as to form part of the res gestae the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kroska v. United States
...162 F. 618, 626; Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, Harrod v. U. S., 58 App. D. C. 254, 29 F.(2d) 454, 455; Harris v. U. S., 50 App. D. C. 139, 269 F. 481, 482. ...
-
Beausoliel v. United States
...89, 94. See Wicker v. Scott, 6 Cir., 29 F.2d 807, 809; Kressin v. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 194 Wis. 480, 215 N.W. 908. Cf. Harris v. United States, 50 App.D.C. 139, 269 F. 481. 11 Soto v. Territory, 12 Ariz. 36, 94 P. 1104, 12 Cf. Kehan v. Washington Ry. & Elec. Co., 28 App.D.C. 108, 115, 116; ......
-
Crawford v. United States
...because in the end the jury believed that the latter reflected the truth. Our conclusion also finds support in Harris v. United States, 1920, 50 App.D.C. 139, 269 F. 481. The crime there was similar. The child testified to details of improper advances by the accused, including the particula......
-
Smith v. Doyle
...objected are unimportant and their admission, even if erroneous, was not so prejudicial as to require reversal. Harris v. United States, 50 App.D.C. 139, 269 F. 481; Belisle v. Lisk, 1 Cir., 16 F.2d 261; Reid v. Baker, 9 Cir., 288 F. We think the testimony we have summarized disposes also o......