People v. Miller

• Decision Date: 16 June 1893
• Citation: 96 Mich. 119,55 N.W. 675
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. MILLER.

55 N.W. 675

96 Mich. 119

PEOPLE v. MILLER.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 16, 1893

Error to circuit court, Clare county; Henry Hart, Judge.

Warren Miller was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape and brings error.Affirmed.

Geo. J Cummins, (W. W. Green, of counsel,) for appellant.

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

HOOKER C.J.

The defendant was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape upon a girl of less than 14 years of age.The proof consisted of testimony from the girl, who unequivocally testified to the completed act of sexual intercourse, testimony from a physician, showing an examination and rupture of the membrane, testimony of one or two witnesses to admissions on the part of defendant to the effect that he had intercourse with the girl on the occasion charged, and testimony that she was at the time below the age of 14 years and that she had been subject to menstrual periods for a year.The defendant was sworn, and denied seeing the girl upon the occasion charged.The errors relied on are as follows: (1) That the court charged the jury that the defendant might be convicted of rape, of assault with intent to commit rape, or of simple assault; (2) that, defendant having denied the transaction, the jury should have been charged that there must be some testimony corroborating that of the girl, or the verdict must be not guilty; (3) that the jury should have been charged that if the girl had reached the age of puberty, although under 14 years of age, she was no longer a "child," within the meaning of the statute; (4) that the jury should have been directed to return a verdict for the defendant because the girl had reached the age of puberty.It is true that upon this record the proof upon one side shows the completed act of sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 14 years, while upon the other a denial of any offense is made.Under such proof it cannot be denied that a verdict of assault with intent to rape is illogical.But an assault with intent to commit rape is necessarily included in every rape.The defendant's counsel are alleging, not an injurious error, but one which, if it could be called an error, has resulted in defendant's advantage.In the case of Hall v. People, (Mich.)11 N.W. 414, this question was passed upon, and the omission to charge the jury that the defendant might be found guilty of the lesser offense was held to be error, in just such a case as this.See, also, State v....