People v. Page

• Decision Date: 27 March 1900
• Citation: 56 N.E. 750,162 N.Y. 272
• Parties: PEOPLE v. PAGE.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

162 N.Y. 272

56 N.E. 750

PEOPLE

v.PAGE.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 27, 1900.

Appeal from supreme court, trial term, Albany county.

Wilson E. Page was convicted of rape, and he appeals. Reversed.

Haight, J., dissenting.

Gibbs & Wilber, for appellant.

Tilley Blakely, for the People.

O'BRIEN, J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of rape committed upon the person of one Etta Hopkins on the 20th day of August, 1895. The complainant was then a girl 16 years of age or over, and residing with the defendant, who was her guardian. The defendant, his wife, and this girl constituted the family, and they resided in the country upon a farm. The alleged outrage upon the person of the girl was accomplished, according to her version of the affair, in a most extraordinary manner. The substance of her statement is that on the day referred to, about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, while in the kitchen with her mistress, the defendant's wife, preparing supper, the defendant, in the presence of his wife, asked her to go with him into the next room, and upon her refusal he seized her, dragged her into a small room called the ‘sink room,’ adjoining the kitchen, and, with the door leading into the kitchen open, and in the presence and hearing of his wife, violated her person, notwithstanding her cries, and the utmost resistance upon her part. The defendant and his wife were both sworn as witnesses, and denied the transaction in general and in all the particulars. The time, place, and circumstances attending the commission of the crime as stated by the complainant in her testimony invite attention, and compel us to follow the subsequent conduct of the girl, and her attitude towards the defendant and his wife. The latter must, of course, have been an accomplice in the crime, if we assume that the version of the transaction given by the complainant is to be taken as true. The complainant states that, after the defendant had accomplished his purpose, he passed out of the small sink room through the open door into the kitchen, where the wife was during the commission of the crime. If the statement of the girl is to be accepted, the participation of the wife in the outrage is perfectly clear, since the former swears that during the struggle she called upon her several times to come to her assistance, and was told to ‘keep still.’ The complainant then states that she remained in the small room, after the defendant left her, long enough to arrange her clothing, and then came out into the kitchen, where both the defendant and his wife were, and what occurred at this critical juncture can best be stated in her own words: ‘When I came out, I saw Mrs. Page sitting by the table in the kitchen. I did not tell her what he had done. I did not say a word to her about it then. He told me I must not. When I came out, and saw Mrs. Page sitting by the table in the kitchen, Mr. Page was there. I did not say a word to Mrs. Page about what he had done.’ In the evening the girl left defendant's house, and went to that of one of the neighbors, where she had formerly boarded. She remained there a few days, and then returned to the defendant's house, where she remained four months longer, and, so far as appears, no reference was made to the transaction until after she left, about the end of the year, when another guardian was selected. While the girl was absent from the defendant's house during the few days after the alleged outrage, it appears that she made some disclosures to the woman in whose house in the neighborhood she was stopping, which will be noticed hereafter. The defendant could not have been convicted upon the testimony of the girl ‘unsupported by other evidence,’ since the statute so declares (Pen. Code, § 283), and the only question presented by this appeal is whether there was any other evidence in the case tending to prove the crime. The rule in such cases is that the corroborative evidence, whether consisting of acts or admissions, must at least be of such a character and quality as tends to prove the guilt of the accused by connecting him with the crime. Underh. Ev. § 74. The corroboration must extend to every material fact essential to constitute the crime. People v. O'Sullivan, 104 N. Y. 481, 10 N. E. 880;People v. Kearney, 110 N. Y. 188, 17 N. E. 736;People v. Plath, 100 N. Y. 590, 3 N. E. 790;Kenyon v. People, 26 N. Y. 203.

At the close of the case for the prosecution the defendant's counsel requested the court to advise the jury to acquit on the ground that the testimony of the prosecutrix was not corroborated. The motion was denied, and an exception taken. All the testimony produced to corroborate the complainant was very fairly stated and summed up by the learned trial judge in his charge to the jury as follows: ‘For the purpose of corroborating the testimony of this girl, the people have called Mrs. McCulloch, who had given evidence tending to show that a short time after the alleged commission of this offense she had a conversation with the defendant, in which she stated to him, in effect, as I remember it, that Etta Hopkins had stated to her that he had committed the crime of rape upon her, and that she testifies that he did not deny it. It is also proved evidence is given tending to show upon the part of the people that...