People v. Skutt

• Decision Date: 25 July 1893
• Citation: 56 N.W. 11,96 Mich. 449
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. SKUTT.

56 N.W. 11

96 Mich. 449

PEOPLE v. SKUTT.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 25, 1893

Error to circuit court, Clinton county; Sherman B. Daboll, Judge.

Latin Skutt was convicted of incest, and brings error. Affirmed.

Lyon &amp Dooling, for appellant.

A. A Ellis, Atty. Gen., and Wm. A. Norton, Pros. Atty., for the People.

GRANT, J.

The respondent was convicted of incest with his own daughter, 16 years of age. Four errors are assigned.

The crime was charged to have been committed July 30, 1892.

1. Acts of sexual intercourse between the respondent and his daughter were shown by the evidence at various times for a period of about eight years previous to the commission of the crime alleged; also during that time one act of familiarity was shown, which was of such a character as to lead to the conclusion that its purpose was for sexual intercourse. The evidence was properly admitted. People v. Jenness, 5 Mich. 305, 319. In that case acts of intercourse covering a period of five years were held competent. The reasons for the admission of such evidence are there clearly stated in an able opinion by Mr. Justice Christiancy. People v Hendrickson, 53 Mich. 525, 19 N.W. 169, appears to be in conflict with People v. Jenness, though the facts in the two cases are different. In the former case, acts of familiarity and intimacy, occurring over two years before the prosecution was commenced, were held inadmissible in a prosecution for adultery, on the ground that they were too remote. We adhere to the rule laid down in People v. Jenness.

2. The prosecuting attorney, in his argument to the jury, used the following language: "It is an undisputed fact that this sort of conduct had been going on between the defendant and his daughter from the time she was eight years old down to the time of the commission of the crime for which he is now on trial." Under the record in this case, we do not think this language was error. Several witnesses had testified to acts of sexual intercourse during the period covered. No evidence was introduced on the part of the respondent. No attempt was made to impeach the witnesses for the prosecution.

3. In his charge to the jury the court used this language: "In this case, upon the argument by counsel on both sides, it has been conceded that about the time and place charged in the information the defendant and the complaining witness, his daughter, had sexual intercourse. It is claimed upon the part of the people that it was under such circumstances as make him guilty of the offense charged. It is claimed upon the part of the defendant that, while the intercourse took place it was not under such circumstances as make him guilty under this charge, but constituted the offense of rape." This statement by the court was not challenged by the respondent's counsel upon the trial, nor does he now state in his...