People v. McLean

• Decision Date: 11 July 1888
• Citation: 71 Mich. 309,38 N.W. 917
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. MCLEAN.

38 N.W. 917

71 Mich. 309

PEOPLE v. MCLEAN.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 11, 1888

Error to circuit court, Clare county; HENRY HART, Judge.

Indictment of Laughlin McLean for rape. Defendant was convicted of an assault with intent to commit rape, and brings error.

W A. Burritt, Pros. Atty., and Moses Taggart, Atty. Gen., for the People.

LONG J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of rape in the circuit court for the county of Clare on the 24th day of January 1888, and brings the case into this court by writ of error. On the trial of the cause, Mertie Merrill was called as a witness by the people, and testified that she was the daughter of Wellington Merrill and Fannie McLean; that her father is the complainant in this case, and is now living and that he was divorced from her mother about one year ago soon after which time the defendant, Laughlin McLean, and her mother were married. About the 1st of August, 1887, her mother was called away from home to attend the funeral of her parent. After her mother had been away from home a few days the defendant came into her room one night, soon after she had retired, and then and there ravished and carnally knew her, and that said act was by force and against her will. It was about one week before her mother came home, and that she continued to keep house for the defendant until her mother returned. About one week after her mother returned home, she told her of the affair. This was the first she told any one about it. She told one of her school-mates about it some time afterwards, and told no one else until she told her father. On her cross-examination by defendant's counsel, she testified that on Alfonzo Longworthy worked for Mr. McLean during the summer of 1887, and that he went away from his house only a few days before the time when her mother went to the southern part of the state to attend the funeral of her parent; that she had never before had sexual intercourse with any one; that she had not told Mr. and Mrs. Bates that she had sexual intercourse with Alfonzo Longworthy, at the time she was stopping at their house; that she stopped there at the time of the arrest in this case. The people here rested their case, and the defendant called as witnesses in his behalf Mr. and Mrs. Bates, and offered to prove by them that Mertie Merrill did tell them, while stopping at their house, that she had had sexual intercourse with Alfonzo Longworthy several times while he was working for the defendant. This evidence was excluded by the court, and error is assigned upon such ruling. This raises the only question in the case for review. The rule is laid down by Mr. Greenleaf, in his work on Evidence, (3 Greenl. Ev. � 214) that the character of the prosecutrix for chastity may be impeached; but this must be done by general evidence of her reputation in that respect, and not by evidence of particular instances of unchastity. Nor can she be interrogated as to criminal connection with any other person, except as to her previous intercourse with the prisoner himself; nor is such evidence of other instances admissible. The weight of authority, both in this country and England, is decidedly against the admissibility of such evidence. In King v. Hodgson, Russ. & R. 211, the prisoner's counsel offered a witness to...