People v. Keller

• Decision Date: 02 June 1924
• Docket Number: No. 137.,137.
• Citation: People v. Keller, 227 Mich. 520, 198 N.W. 939 (Mich. 1924)
• Parties: PEOPLE v. KELLER.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

227 Mich. 520

198 N.W. 939

PEOPLE

v.KELLER.

No. 137.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 2, 1924.

Error to Circuit Court, Kent County; Willis B. Perkins, Judge.

Jesse Keller was convicted of taking indecent liberties with his daughter's person, and he brings error.Judgment set aside, and new trial granted.

Argued before CLARK, C. J., and McDONALD, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ. John J. Smolenski, of Grand Rapids, for appellant.

Cornelius Hoffius, Pros.Atty., and Arthur R. Sherk, Asst. Pros.Atty., both of Grand Rapids, for the People.

SHARPE, J.

The information in this case charged defendant with having committed the crime of statutory rape on his daughter, Leah, a female child under the age of 16 years.In a second count he was charged with taking indecent liberties with her person.He was convicted on the latter count, and, after denial of a motion for a new trial, was sentenced to serve from five to ten years in the state prison, with the recommendation of five years as a minimum sentence.He here reviews his conviction on writ of error.

Leah, 13 years of age at the time of the alleged assault, testified that she was living at the farm home with her father and her stepmother; that on the occasion in question she went to the barn with some ‘potato parings' to feed the cow; that it was then dark; that her father was there in the barn, that he told her to go up stairs; that he followed her with a lantern, told her to lie down on some bags on the floor; that she did so, and he then had sexual intercourse with her; that he had had such intercourse with her at other times before that.Dr. Cora Moon, called as a witness for the people, testified that she examined Leah on January 27th and found conditions such as might have resulted from an act of sexual intercourse.No other corroborative proof was offered.

Defendant's counsel cross-examined Leah at great length.She admitted that she had had trouble with her stepmother, and been punished by her, and had complained to her sister, Alice (Mrs. Vossen), then living at home, and her school teacher about it, and had ‘threatened to leave home and go away;’ that she was mad at her father‘because he made me apologize to my stepmother;’ that the day following the alleged assault she went after school with her teacher to the juvenile court; that she had several times told her sister that her father had had intercourse with her, and she also told the matron of the juvenile home, to which she was sent.She admitted that she had talked with Alice ‘about indecent relations and indecent stories,’ but denied that she had told her about improper or unlawful conduct with other persons.The people then rested their case.

The defense called Leah's sister, Alice, who was permitted without objection to relate her conversations with Leah, which had been denied by her, in which she told about having improper relations with other men.She testified that there were no bags on the upper floor of the barn at the time charged; that they had all been sold prior to that time.On cross-examination, she was interrogated at length as to improper relations with her father.It was shown that she had made a sworn complaint charging him with incest, although she stated that she did not understand that she was charging her father with such an offense.She was then asked:

‘Well, you knew your father pleaded guilty to that offense, didn't you?’

To this strenuous objection was made.Her answer was taken, and was in the nature of a denial.

[1][2][3] The fact in dispute which the jury were called upon to determine was whether the story told by Leah as to what occurred in the barn was true.To that end all testimony bearing upon her credibility was admissible.That of her sister Alice, tending...