James v. State
| Decision Date | 31 January 1905 |
| Citation | 102 N.W. 320,124 Wis. 130 |
| Parties | JAMES v. STATE. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Municipal Court, Milwaukee County; A. C. Brazee, Judge.
Charles James was convicted of rape, and he brings error. Affirmed.J. H. Stover, for plaintiff in error.
L. M. Sturdevant, Atty. Gen., and W. D. Corrigan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of the crime of rape upon a girl under the age of 14 years, and prosecutes a writ of error to reverse the judgment.
The information charged in one count both assault with intent to rape and rape itself. The verdict was, “Guilty as charged,” and the first contention is that the verdict is indefinite and uncertain, because two different crimes are charged, and, the verdict being general, it cannot be ascertained of which crime the plaintiff in error has been convicted. Hogan v. State, 30 Wis. 428, 11 Am. Rep. 575. This contention must fail, because the premises are unsound. The charge of assault with intent to commit rape is mere surplusage. It is necessarily included in a charge of rape. The information charging both crimes is therefore no different, in legal effect, from an information charging rape alone. Upon an information charging rape alone a general verdict of guilty as charged is in no way indefinite or uncertain, and hence such a verdict is not uncertain in the present case.
The child who is alleged to have been raped was taken by her mother to Dr. Bradley a few days after the alleged offense, to be examined for the purpose only of determining whether she then had a venereal disease, it appearing that the plaintiff in error was suffering from that disease at the time of the alleged rape. The doctor was called on the stand, and was allowed to testify, against objection, as to the results of his examination, and this ruling is assigned as error on the ground that the information obtained by the doctor was privileged under section 4075, Rev. St. 1898. The ruling was correct, because such information is privileged only when required and obtained for the purpose of enabling the physician to prescribe for the patient as a physician or act as a surgeon. In re Will of Druendl, 102 Wis. 45, 78 N. W. 169.
Testimony was received, against objection, showing certain offers of settlement and confessions of guilt made by the plaintiff in error after he was arrested, and error is alleged because it is claimed that these offers and statements were not voluntarily...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smart v. Kansas City
...to wit: Schermer v. McMahon, 108 Mo. App. 36, 82 S. W. 535; Henry v. Lake Erie Ry. Co., 57 Hun, 76, 10 N. Y. Supp. 508; James v. State, 124 Wis. 130, 102 N. W. 320; Scripps v. Foster, 41 Mich. 742, 3 N. W. 216; Estate of Freeman, 46 Hun (N. Y.) 458; Griffiths v. Ry. Co., 171 N. Y. 106, 63 N......
-
Smart v. Kansas City
...his testimony did not come within the exemption of the statute. Schermer v. McMahon, 39 Mo.App. 36; Henry v. Railroad, 57 Hun 76; James v. State, 102 N.W. 320; Scripps Foster, 41 Mich. 748; Estate Freeman, 46 Hun 461; Griffith v. Railroad, 171 N.Y. 106; Lowenstein's Will, 2 Misc. (N. Y.) 32......
-
Casson v. Schoenfeld
...defendant, and where clearly the examination was not for the purpose of prescribing his testimony, was properly received. James v. State, 124 Wis. 130, 102 N. W. 320. Under the Code of the state of New York (section 834), which is substantially the same as our section 4075, except that the ......
-
Shaw v. City of Nampa
... ... claim the benefit of the privilege rule. (4 Wigmore on ... Evidence, p. 3354, sec. 2383 (b); James v. State, ... 124 Wis. 130, 102 N.W. 320; 40 Cyc. 2382 (b), 2384 (c), (v).) ... The ... doctor occupied the position of a third person ... ...