People v. Cowles
| Decision Date | 29 March 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 147.,147. |
| Citation | 224 N.W. 387,246 Mich. 429 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. COWLES. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Allegan County; Orien S. Cross, Judge.
Lawrence Cowles was convicted of statutory rape, and he brings error. Reversed, and a new trial granted.
Argued before the Entire Bench, except NORTH, C. J., and POTTER, J. Clare E. Hoffman and Leo W. Hoffman, both of Allegan, for appellant.
Wilber M. Brucker, Atty. Gen., and Harry Pell, Pros. Atty., of Allegan, for the People.
Defendant was convicted of the crime of statutory rape, and reviews by writ of error.
At the trial the prosecutor called a witness to show prior acts of sexual intercourse with another girl. The purpose was disclosed by question put, objections made, rulings excluding answers, and the following remark by the prosecuting attorney: ‘Then we would not be able to show any prior act of this party with another girl.’
This was prejudicial and reversible error. People v. Hunter, 218, Mich. 525, 188 N. W. 346;People v. Gengels, 218 Mich. 632, 188 N. W. 398. See, also, People v. Dorrington, 221 Mich. 571, 191 N. W. 831;People v. Ruggero, 223 Mich. 368, 193 N. W. 861;People v. Keller, 227 Mich. 520, 198 N. W. 939. The established rule, so frequently found necessary of application by this court, should have been observed by the prosecuting attorney. Two rulings against his purpose preceded his remark. What we said in People v. Cords, 232 Mich. 620, 206 N. W. 541, upon this subject applies to this case.
At the trial defendant called two medical practitioners, who had observed the girl, and in answer to hypothetical questions they expressed opinions that she was a pathological falsifier, a nymphomaniac, and a sexual pervert. Evidence offered to prove acts of the girl showing sexual perversion and lascivious conduct, inclusive of exposure of her person to schoolboys, was excluded. We think the testimony should have been received, not in extenuation of rape, but for its bearing upon the question of the weight to be accorded the testimony of the girl and the question of whether the mind of the girl was so warped by sexual contemplation and desires as to lead her to accept the imagined as real, or to fabricate a claimed sexual experience. The testimony of the medical experts was admitted without objection, and was for the jury to consider.
In the charge to the jury the court said: ‘Certain testimony has been offered by so-called expert witnesses, based upon the assumed facts,’ etc. It is urged that characterizing witnesses as so-called experts was prejudicial. The prefix should not have been employed.
In argument to the jury the prosecuting attorney committed prejudicial error. In part he said:
‘I don't believe there was ever a more disreputable thing seen-I don't think there was anything more disreputable pulled off in a court of justice, than was pulled off by these two doctors.
‘Mr. Hoffman: I object to it, if the court please, and take an exception.
‘The Court: The prosecutor has a right to argue the testimony. It is a matter of argument. * * *
‘Now, I would say, gentlemen, if these two doctors were to put on a stunt like that in a vaudeville show, they would go over big. They would get a big laugh. Dr. Robinson, sitting in the chair there, reminds me of an advertisement you have probably all seem. Mr. Hoffman is his attorney, and he has testified for Mr. Hoffman several times, quite often. You have seen the advertisement of the Victor phonograph, a little dog with his head cocked on one side, listening to one of those old-fashioned, large-horn phonographs; under, it says, ‘His Master's Voice.’ * * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Howard
...Mich. 357, 373-376, 377 N.W.2d 738 (1985), together with People v. Williams, 218 Mich. 697, 188 N.W. 413 (1922), and People v. Cowles, 246 Mich. 429, 224 N.W. 387 (1929), defendant argues that the prosecutor engaged in numerous, improper attacks of his expert witness. Because defendant did ......
-
People v. Dawsey
...character in question such testimony is competent." 330 Mich. at 462, 47 N.W.2d at 695. [76 MICHAPP 763] See, also, People v. Cowles, 246 Mich. 429, 431, 224 N.W. 387 (1929), People v. Smallwood, 306 Mich. 49, 54-55, 10 N.W.2d 303 (1943). While it is admitted that a certain amount of prejud......
-
State v. Sinnott
...P. 874, 46 L.R.A.,N.S., 1028 (Wash.Sup.Ct.1913); Rice v. State, 195 Wis. 181, 217 N.W. 697 (Wis.Sup.Ct.1928). People v. Cowles, 246 Mich. 429, 224 N.W. 387 (Mich.Sup.Ct.1929); State v. Wesler, 1 N.J. 58, 61 A.2d 746 (1948); Miller v. State, 49 Okl.Cr. 133, 295 P. 403 (Okl.Cr.Ct.1930). Compa......
-
People v. Brocato
...Applying this test, the statement of the complainant's sexual adventures with other men was relevant under People v. Cowles (1929), 246 Mich. 429, 224 N.W. 387. As to the balance of the requested discovery by defendant, the record is inadequate for us to make any rule precise enough to be o......