People v. Eddy
| Decision Date | 02 December 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 156.,156. |
| Citation | 233 N.W. 336,252 Mich. 340 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. EDDY. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Calhoun County; Blaine W. Hatch, Judge.
Frank Eddy was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench, except NORTH, J. Howard W. Cavanagh, of Battle Creek, for appellant.
Andrew W. Lockton, Pros. Atty., of Battle Creek, and Wm. J. Kearney, Asst. Pros. Atty., of Albion, for the People.
Respondent was charged with the crime of statutory rape on Charlotte French, a child under sixteen years of age. The information also charged him with taking indecent and improper liberties with the child, but this charge was later dropped by the prosecution. The record does not give the eact age of the child, but it is not denied that she was under sixteen years of age when the crime was committed. Respondent's counsel in one of his assignments states that she was fifteen years of age. She was a ward of the probate court at the time of the trial. Respondent lived with Charlotte's parents at Albion, to which city they had recently moved from Lee Center. Charlotte remained at Lee Center during the school days of the week in order to complete the school term, but would return to the new home in Albion for the week-end. At the time that the alleged crime was committed, respondent volunteered to call for her and bring her home. It is claimed that on the way home he drove his automobile into a secluded shed between a church and a school building and there committed the crime.
Respondent was 44 years of age, and was divorced from his former wife. Their daughter was a companion of Charlotte's. There was testimony showing that respondent was very much in love with Charlotte, exceedingly affectionate to her when no one was around, desired to marry her, and was extremely jealous when she received the attentions of others. Respondent showed that he was suffering from a venereal disease at the time of the alleged crime, and it is claimed that he would have transmitted it to the girl were he guilty of the crime. The testimony further shows that, after the alleged crime was committed, he told her to take money from his room in the home of Charlotte's parents and purchase some medicine that would produce an abortion; that, shortly after the alleged crime was committed, Charlotte ran away from home and went to Bryan, Ohio, without her parents knowing her whereabouts; that subsequently respondent drove to Bryan and took Charlotte to Mt. Pleasant, Mich., where her whereabouts still remained unknown to her parents; that, when respondent was threatened with charges, he drove to Mt. Pleasant and brought the girl back home.
Respondent was arrested by a state trooper, and was interrogated by two members of the state police at the latter's office in Jackson, Mich. He denied his guilt, and was lodged in jail at Jackson. The following day he was taken to Marshall, Mich., where, after considerable interrogation, he signed a first statement showing that he had improperly treated the girl. Shortly thereafter he signed a second statement in which he admitted that he committed statutory rape. The testimony of a state trooper, who secured the two statements signed by respondent, was to the effect that respondent was told that he did not have to sign any statement, and that, if there were any action brought, it could be used against him. Respondent denied committing the crime, claimed that others were present when he accompanied the girl home on the evening in question. He further denied almost all of the other damaging statements. He claims that, when he was at the office of the state police in Jackson, he was struck on the mouth by a state trooper, and that his lips bled for a considerable period. He does not claim he received any violent treatment the following day at Marshall, except that he asked to see an attorney, and was not given the opportunity. The prosecution showed that an unsuccessful effort was made to obtain an attorney for him. Respondent further claims that the statements or confessions were read to him before he signed them, and that the parts in each statement with reference to the gist of the crime were inserted after he signed the statement, and that he thought the second statement was a carbon copy of the first one.
There were no requests whatever to charge. The judge in his charge stated that the lesser offenses included in the crime of statutory rape were assault with intent to rape and assault and battery. He made no reference whatsoever in his charge to the statements or confessions reported to have been made by respondent. The jury found the respondent guilty of the crime of assault with intent to commit rape.
It is claimed that the court erred in permitting the dismissal of the charge of taking improper and indecent liberties with a female child. While this crime has some of the characteristics of that of assault with intent to commit statutory rape, it nevertheless is not one of the lesser degrees of statutory rape. The court did instruct the jury as to the lesser degrees of the crime of statutory rape. When the charge of taking improper and indecent liberties with a female child was dropped, respondent had already been put in jeopardy. We know of no rule of law which gives one the right or privilege to be charged with a crime which is not a lesser degree of the offense than that with which he still remains charged.
It is further claimed that the court erred in not charging the jury that they should not pay attention to the statements or confessions of respondent. While it would have been very proper for the court to have made reference to the confessions inasmuch as he discussed the other testimony, and he should have done it sua sponte, there was no error in his failing to do so under the circumstances. The confessions were introduced, and full and complete testimony was given to show the circumstances under which they were obtained and that they were voluntary. Respondent in his defense claimed that they were improperly obtained. It became a question of fact thereupon whether the confessions were signed by respondent in the form in which they were introduced and whether they were made without duress, threats, or promises. Respondent was defended by able counsel who made no requests to charge whatsoever. He did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Worrell
...Phillips, 385 Mich. 30, 36, 187 N.W.2d 211 (1971), People v. Oberstaedt, 372 Mich. 521, 524, 127 N.W.2d 354 (1964), People v. Eddy, 252 Mich. 340, 346, 233 N.W. 336 (1930), People v. Martin, 208 Mich. 109, 175 N.W. 233 (1919), People v. Abbott, 97 Mich. 484, 56 N.W. 862 (1893), People v. Mc......
-
People v. Worrell
...Sec. 28.280), force, or lack of consent, was not a necessary element where the victim was under the age of consent. People v. Eddy, 252 Mich. 340, 233 N.W. 336 (1930); People v. Kongeal, 212 Mich. 307, 180 N.W. 636 (1920); People v. Chamblin, 149 Mich. 653, 113 N.W. 27 (1907); People v. Gou......
-
People v. Gibbons
...One charged with rape may be convicted of assault with intent to commit rape, assault and battery, or simple assault. People v. Eddy, 252 Mich. 340, 348, 233 N. W. 336. It is claimed, however, that assault with intent to commit rape is a different crime entirely from an attempt to commit ra......
-
People v. Lummis, 167.
...liberties. Error is assigned upon its withdrawal from consideration by the jury. There is no merit in this contention. People v. Eddy, 252 Mich. 340, 233 N. W. 336. The other errors relied upon have received due consideration. Further discussion seems unnecessary. In our opinion the defenda......