People v. Brown

• Decision Date: 30 April 1884
• Citation: 19 N.W. 172,53 Mich. 531
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. BROWN.

19 N.W. 172

53 Mich. 531

PEOPLE v. BROWN.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 30, 1884

Upon an indictment for rape of a female child, evidence is admissible of the answers given by the girl two or three days after the alleged injury, to the questions of her mother, induced by the girl's singular demeanor. Such statements are a part of the res gestae, and their weight is for the jury.

A hypothetical question put to a physician whether, in his opinion, the facts assumed would constitute rape, is altogether improper, being a demand for his legal, instead of his medical, knowledge. Yet if he gives a correct answer, the impropriety of the question is no ground for a new trial.

Error to Wayne.

J.J. Van Riper, for the People.

Edward S. Grece and Sylvester Larned, for defendant and appellant.

CAMPBELL, J.

Respondent was convicted of rape. The offense, if committed, was done while respondent had the young girl, who was the subject of it, apart in her own chamber, for the purpose of examination and treatment for some female difficulty. According to her story, he used locally some articles which, it is supposed and testified, might prevent some significant appearance and consequences, which would otherwise have been likely to become manifest. Her account, if true, made out a clear and aggravated case. He, in his sworn statements, denied any sexual intercourse of any kind. There was nothing in the case which could relieve the jury from believing one or the other of these witnesses upon the question of intercourse, and it is difficult to see how any complicated issues could arise. In this conflict the circumstantial evidence became essential in aiding the jury to determine which was to be substantially credited, and upon this there was therefore a contest upon the trial, and there were facts open to comment. There was the testimony of physicians who made a personal examination shortly after, which, if true, made it reasonably certain that she had been violated by some one; and, so far as the record shows, there was no testimony pointing in any other direction as to the person who did the act. It appears however, that other witnesses, sworn as medical experts, are claimed to have given a different view of the meaning of the appearances. All this was before the jury, and no points are made upon it on the law. But the radical differences between the chief witnesses on the main fact were those on which all the other testimony was meant to bear.

Objection was made to the testimony of the mother in showing that on the next day but one after the occurrence the appearance and behavior of the girl were such that she insisted on knowing what was the matter, and the daughter told her what had occurred. We think this was admissible under the previous rulings of this court, referred to on the argument. In all such cases it is desirable to know how soon or in what way the outraged person complains. Its force is for the jury. In the present case the mother had directed, if not compelled the daughter to submit to medical treatment of a necessarily unpleasant nature, and had been induced to leave the room. It was after an interview with respondent that the mother had herself caused and in connection with appearances, and a shame-faced look in the child, that she made the inquiry which it was certainly her duty to make, and which it was as proper to show. The jury were not, so far as we can see, allowed to be misled into giving this testimony any further force than legally belonged to it. It was, to a certain extent, a part of the transaction, or res gestae which, in rape cases, according to most of the authorities, would include such accounts of the recent crime as are to be expected from the injured woman. We do not think the ruling was erroneous.

Two further objections to answers required by the court to be given by a medical witness to certain interrogatories require more attention, because they were not such as he could properly be called on to answer, and he strongly objected to them as not involving medical science. That they were improper is too manifest to bear discussion. But it is not so clear that the answers worked any legal wrong. One of them occupies two full printed pages, and asks the doctor whether in his opinion, the facts assumed in the hypothesis...