People v. Rock, 111
| Decision Date | 24 February 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 111,Jan. Term.,111 |
| Citation | 283 Mich. 171,277 N.W. 873 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. ROCK. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Gordon Rock was convicted of assault with intent to commit the crime of rape, and he appeals.
Reversed, and new trial granted on the charge of assault with intent to commit rape.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Delta County; Frank A. Bell, judge.
George W. Carr, of Escanaba, for appellant.
Raymond W. Starr, Atty. Gen., Edmund E. Shepherd, Asst. Atty. Gen., and William J. Miller, of Escanaba, Pros. Atty., for the People.
Gordon Rock, 22 years of age, was charged with the crime of rape upon Gerville Raiche, 21 years of age. At the first trial the jury disagreed. At the second trial the jury returned a verdict of guilty of assault, with intent to commit the crime of rape, and sentence followed.
Upon review by defendant it is claimed that, under the evidence, the charge of rape, consummated, should not have been submitted to the jury.
The testimony of the woman was of rape accomplished, and the court was not in error in leaving the issue thereon to the jury. The verdict acquitted defendant of the crime of rape, and that left the included charges of major and minor assaults.
The offense was alleged to have been committed the night of May 12, 1936, on the front seat of a Chevrolet, four-door sedan, while parked at the side of the roadbed of a highway in Delta county. The automobile had carried three persons to that point; prosecutrix, defendant, and a young man named Palmer, but prosecutrix claims that Palmer left before the assault was made.
Mr. Palmer was a witness, called by the People, and he testified that he was present all the time and no assault occurred.
The jury evidently discounted the claim of rape under the awkward surroundings and the resistance of the female, but found the attempt, with intent to commit the crime.
After the alleged rape, the woman ran into the woods at the side of the road and went to the house of an acquaintance, where she appeared with her hair all mussed, her face swollen, her neck scratched, with red marks on it, her coat and dress torn, and with a scratch on one limb above the knee. She wanted to tell what had happened, but was told to wait until morning, and was put to bed. She did say, however, that ‘she went out with two boys and she thought they were all right,’ and that she had been attacked.
No objection was made to this testimony and, being the original complaint, it was admissible.
The next morning she was taken home and her mother testified that ‘She started to cry right away.’ She was asked by the prosecuting attorney:
The witness answered: ‘She didn't tell me all right then.’ Thereupon counsel for defendant objected. The court ruled: ‘You can answer whether or not she told, not what she told you.’
The witness replied: ‘Ye...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Gallagher v. Walter, 77.
- Wells v. Oliver
-
Sherrick v. State, 33398
...her credibility, and is inadmissible for any purpose. See, 75 C.J.S., Rape, § 53, p. 525; 52 C.J., Rape, § 90, p. 1063; People v. Rock, 283 Mich. 171, 277 N.W. 873. Under the circumstances appearing in this record, we conclude that the conversation aforesaid allegedly had with the mother by......
-
People v. Bonneau, 12.
...on People v. Hicks, supra; People v. White, 194 Mich. 172, 160 N.W. 452;People v. Place, 226 Mich. 212, 197 N.W. 513;People v. Rock, 283 Mich. 171, 277 N.W. 873, 874. In the Hicks Case this court held the detailing of the conversation between the prosecutrix and a witness permissible, not a......