People v. Craig

• Decision Date: 22 March 1898
• Citation: 74 N.W. 528,116 Mich. 388
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. CRAIG.

74 N.W. 528

116 Mich. 388

PEOPLE v. CRAIG.

Supreme Court of Michigan

March 22, 1898

Error to circuit court, Houghton county; Jay A. Hubbell, Judge.

George Craig was convicted of having carnal knowledge of a female child, and he brings error. Reversed.

J. F Hambitzer, for appellant.

Fred A Maynard, Atty. Gen., and A. T. Streeter, Pros. Atty., for the People.

MONTGOMERY J.

Respondent was convicted of having carnal knowledge of a female child one Annie Dapio, while a member of respondent's family. On the trial she gave evidence supporting the charge, and also gave testimony tending to show that respondent furnished her medicines, which she took by his direction, and which produced a miscarriage. On her cross-examination, written confessions, signed by her, were introduced, and also a written statement to the effect that respondent had always treated her kindly, and that he had never tried to take any liberty with her. The witness admitted having written these letters, but testified that they were written by direction of respondent, and under threats. Respondent was a witness in his own behalf, and, after having denied the charge brought against him, testified "that Annie was a wild girl, and that he had just about caught her different places,-that is, with different ones." He was asked "When did you first commence noticing these acts of hers,-the first that you saw of anything of the kind?" That was objected to, and ruled out. We think this testimony should have been received for its bearing on the truthfulness of the complaining witness. It is true, as contended by the prosecution, that the character of the female for chastity is not ordinarily involved in a prosecution for this offense but by the receipt of these confessions, and the statement of the witness that they were forced from her, the line of inquiry was opened up, particularly as the prosecution had attempted to show that the pregnancy had resulted from the alleged intercourse with respondent. This could only have been offered to corroborate the statement of the complaining witness. If competent for this purpose, it was proper for defendant to meet it by showing a state of facts justifying an inference that another than he was responsible for the condition of the girl. People v. Kaminsky, 73 Mich. 638, 41 N.W. 833. This question was preliminary, it is true, but the objection was that "the fact that she [the witness] had a crime...