People v. Bressler

• Decision Date: 17 September 1902
• Citation: 131 Mich. 390,91 N.W. 639
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. BRESSLER.

91 N.W. 639

131 Mich. 390

PEOPLE v. BRESSLER.

Supreme Court of Michigan

September 17, 1902

Exceptions from circuit court, Cass county; John R. Carr, Judge.

Hiram Bressler was convicted of seduction, and he brings exceptions. Reversed.

Cassius M. Eby, for appellant.

Horace M. Oren, Atty. Gen., and Ulysses S. Eby, Pros. Atty., for the People.

MOORE J.

The respondent was convicted of the crime of seduction. He has brought the case here by writ of error. The information charged the offense was committed August 19, A. D. 1900. The complaining witness testified to the commission of the offense upon that date. After she had given this testimony the following occurred: 'Q. Did he visit you recently after the 19th of August, at the time he was to your house on Sunday night? A. Well, I don't know. I think he stopped maybe once a week as he went through town. Pros. Attorney Will I be permitted---- The Court: Now, you wish to show when the defendant stopped going to see the complainant? Pros. Attorney: Yes, your honor. The Court: And Mr. Eby objects to that. I think that fact alone may be shown. Mr. C. M. Eby They make the election of the 19th of August, 1900. The Court: Yes; they are bound by that. But this is tending to corroborate, that is all; and I permit you to show just that fact.' On the cross-examination the witness testified to having had sexual intercourse with respondent the 1st of August, and upon several occasions prior thereto, she relying upon his promise to marry her. After the testimony was all in on the part of the people, the respondent moved the court for his discharge, for the reason that the testimony of the complaining witness shows she was not a chaste woman on the 19th of August, when it was charged in the information and proved on the direct examination the sexual intercourse occurred. Upon the argument of this motion the following occurred: 'The Court: Well, that is not alleged, you know. You select the 19th of August, and you are confined to that date under the authorities. Now, if they had intercourse the day before, willingly, there is no seduction on the 19th. The element of seduction is an inducement to seduce, whereby a chaste woman is seduced,--has intercourse. Now, of course, if a young girl promised to be engaged to marry, and the man took advantage of the promise, and persuades her, and she consents, why that is seduction. But if that thing has been going on for some time before that when did the seduction commence? It commenced at the first intercourse. It was done by virtue of the promise. Pros. Attorney: Well, if I understand your honor, that is the evidence in the case. She testified---- The Court: You are not allowed to use that evidence in the case. You are bound by the date you select, and you select the 19th of August. You are permitted to show familiarity prior to that as corroboration of her story, but you can't show a crime on any other day than the 19th. There are authorities when you elect a date you are bound by it, and that is the date alleged in your papers all the way through. I asked about it at the time, if you selected a date, and if the 19th was named in the complaint and information.' The judge held the motion until the following Monday, when he overruled it. At the same time, against the objection of respondent, he allowed the complaining witness to be recalled, and to testify to an act of seduction occurring June 24, 1900. No proof was offered on the part of the respondent. The judge was requested to charge, among other things, as follows: 'If the jury find that the parties had sexual intercourse at any time prior to the time alleged, then the jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt...