People v. Brewer

Citation27 Mich. 134
CourtSupreme Court of Michigan
Decision Date22 April 1873
PartiesThe People v. Winfield Brewer

Submitted on Briefs April 15, 1873.

Exceptions from Kent Circuit.

Byron D. Ball, Attorney General, for the People.

Eggleston & Kleinhans, for respondent.

OPINION

Cooley J.

The defendant was convicted on an information charging him with having seduced and debauched one Josephine Burch. The first error assigned relates to the refusal of the court to allow the defendant to give evidence that the reputation of the complaining witness for morality and virtue in the neighborhood where she resided was bad. Questions were put to several witnesses for the avowed purpose of drawing out such evidence, but in every instance the time inquired about was the time of the trial. It does not, therefore become necessary for us to consider whether the woman's reputation at the time or previous to the alleged offense could be proved or not, as it is manifest that her reputation in that regard would be injuriously affected by the offense itself when made known, so that if the bad reputation could be made use of by the defense, the very crime would become the means of protecting the criminal, and the more notorious the seduction the more certain would be the immunity from punishment.

The next exception relates to the exclusion of evidence to show that the prosecuting witness had admitted sexual intercourse with another person than the defendant. It was not claimed that such evidence was admissible to establish the fact, but it was insisted that such talk by her would show she was not a pure-minded woman, but was inclined to lewdness. The evidence, however, was not offered in connection with other proofs to show a habit of lewd talk and conversation, but for the inferences which might be drawn from the single fact of the admission, that she was not at the time in the path of virtue. For this purpose we think it was inadmissible. It might, without doubt, have been used as impeaching testimony after the proper foundation had been laid for its introduction; but not as proof of a substantive fact.

The defendant put a witness upon the stand and inquired of him if he had ever had sexual intercourse with Miss Burch. The witness declined to answer, for the reason that it might tend to criminate him, and the court held that he had a right so to decline. Another witness was then asked the same question, who also declined to answer. The counsel for defendant then inquired for what reason he declined. But the judge said he had already passed upon that, and refused to require an answer. As a perfectly valid reason for the refusal was manifest, we think no error was committed to defendant's prejudice.

To another witness the question was put whether, previous to the time of the alleged offense, he did not have sexual intercourse with the complaining witness, and the court was asked to compel him to answer, because at the time of the trial any prosecution against him would be barred by the statute of limitations. This would be so if he were charged with seduction, and had not been previously complained of, but not if he were charged with rape. As an affirmative answer might form a link in the chain of testimony to convict him of either offense, no error was committed in the ruling, especially as the court could not know whether the witness had previously been complained of or not.

It is also assigned for error that the court, at the request of the counsel for the people, gave to the jury the following instruction: "When a witness is placed upon the stand and declines answering a question put to him on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • State v. Starr
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 20 Junio 1912
    ...... 350; State v. Keyes, 196 Mo. 136; Buckaleu v. State, 11 Tex.App. 352; Com. v. Drew, 19 Pick. 17; Com. v. Norton, 11 Allen 266; People v. Crissie, 4 Den. (N.Y.) 525. (2) The demurrer should have. been sustained because the evidence clearly showed that the. prosecuting witness had ... confined to a period prior to the date of the alleged offense. for which he was on trial. State v. Marks, 16 Utah. 204; People v. Brewer, 27 Mich. 134; State v. Kinley, 43 Ia. 294; Wroe v. State, 20 Ohio St. 461; Wharton Crim. Ev. 62, 63. (15) The evidence as to the. ......
  • People v. Hagenow
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 3 Diciembre 1908
    ...v. Shepard, 1 Allen (Mass.) 575;Commonwealth v. Price, 10 Gray (Mass.) 472, 71 Am. Dec. 668;People v. Clark, 33 Mich. 112;People v. Brewer, 27 Mich. 134;Boyce v. People, 55 N. Y. 644. The testimony cannot be considered too remote when it appears that the respondent is shown, by her own stat......
  • Wilhite v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 8 Julio 1907
  • Walton v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 6 Junio 1903
    ...1 Wis. 187; 59 Ark. 431; 1 Bish. Cr. Pro. §§ 1053-58; 2 Ib. 669-673; 469, 371; Rice, Cr. Law, 870-6; 421-37; 21 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 1047; 27 Mich. 134; 1 188; 68 Am. Dec. 708; 11 S.E. 856; 40 Ark. 511; Whar. Cr. Ev. §§ 331-2, 719-720; 59 Ark. 379; 51 Ark. 550; 16 S.W. 511; 59 Ark. 431; 84 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT