People v. Murray

• Decision Date: 19 October 1888
• Citation: 40 N.W. 29,72 Mich. 10
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. MURRAY.

40 N.W. 29

72 Mich. 10

PEOPLE v. MURRAY.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 19, 1888

Error to circuit court, Kalamazoo county; GEORGE M. BUCK, Judge.

William N. Cook,(Osborn &amp Mills, of counsel,) for appellant.

Moses Taggart, Atty. Gen., and F. E Knappen, for the People.

SHERWOOD C.J.

The respondent in this case was convicted in the Kalamazoo circuit on the 28th day of February, 1888, of the crime of carnally knowing and abusing a young girl under the age of 14 years, and was sentenced to imprisonment at Jackson for the term of 50 years.The evidence shows that the claimed rape was committed in a barn in the township of Brady, in Kalamazoo county, on the 7th day of January last, and that complaint was not made until the 20th day of February following, and then not by any member of the child's family.It appears from the record that the respondent was a young man about 23 years of age, and addicted to the use of intoxicating liquor to excess; that his parents lived at South Haven, and that he was accustomed to spend the winters at Mrs. Murray's, and had for eight or ten years past; that he had been at Mrs. Murray's about two weeks immediately preceding the commission of the offense charged, and on that day, if the testimony is to be believed on either side, he was so far intoxicated that it is doubtful if he knew what he did.It further appears that the offense as charged was committed in the day-time, about 2 o'clock in the afternoon; that the girl, though not yet 11 years old, was not seriously injured, and that she would not even tell her mother of what occurred until she had been threatened with punishment if she did not do so; that at the time the offense was committed the girl was attending school, and that she continued her school the same after as before the assault upon her occurred.And upon her examination she testified when first interrogated that respondent did not hurt her, but subsequently said he did, and her undergarments were stained with blood.There was no medical examination ever made.The only examination made by any one, as the record shows, was by an aunt of the girl, who, in her testimony, says she found the parts disturbed somewhat inflamed, but the girl did not show anything of the injury in her walk.It further appears that the respondent is cousin to the girl, and that whenever before he had been in the family he was uniformly kind to the children; and the mother of this girl accounts for his criminal conduct towards the child upon the ground he was so far intoxicated that he did not know what he was doing at the time, and does not believe he would have committed the act if sober.From all the testimony it is quite apparent that the physical injuries the child received on the occasion were slight, and if the common-law rules were to be applied, the act shown by the proofs would scarcely reach the grade of the crime charged, and such as it was it seemed not to have excited any great amount of concern or anxiety in the family, as no member thereof made any complaint, and not until the neighbors learned of what had occurred was any action take in the matter.Upon the trial the record discloses that the respondent was not very vigorously defended at the circuit.But two exceptions were taken to any rulings in receiving the testimony.Several were, however, made to the charge.In this court the whole record has been gone over by able counsel upon both sides, and our attention has been earnestly challenged to such errors as have been assigned.All the proceedings had and testimony taken at the circuit are before us.To the general management and conduct of the people's case before the jury, and which are claimed by counsel for the respondent to have been such that no fair trial could be had, objection is now principally made.This view of the case was urged with much vigor and force by respondent's counsel, and a careful review of the whole proceedings has impressed us with the great impropriety and danger of the course pursued.

The case does not show the aggravating circumstances which so frequently accompany criminal conduct of the character charged, and especially is this true when we consider the intoxicated condition of the respondent.While this cannot furnish any legal excuse for what he did, it has an important bearing upon the turpitude of the respondent, and the quality of his crime, and should have had an important influence in determining the extent of the punishment to be inflicted after conviction had.Such considerations, however, seem to have been entirely without weight with the court below, as is very clearly manifest from the extent of the punishment meted out to the respondent.The first objection taken to the testimony received by the court relates to the conduct of the respondent when the sheriff and his deputy arrested him at South Haven some two weeks after the crime was committed.This place was his home.It appears he was in the back yard of a saloon premises at the time, where he claims he had gone to urinate behind some barrels.The prosecution claimed he was there behind the barrels hiding away from the officers and that when they appeared and asked if his name was Murray he denied it, but, on being asked the second time, he said it was Murray, and the officers arrested him, and brought him back to Kalamazoo county.This testimony was...