People v. Smith

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CARPENTER, J.
• Citation: People v. Smith, 132 Mich. 58, 92 N. W. 776 (Mich. 1902)
• Decision Date: 29 December 1902
• Parties: PEOPLE v. SMITH.

92 N.W. 776

132 Mich. 58

PEOPLE v. SMITH.

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 29, 1902

Error to circuit court, Benzie county; Clyde C. Chittenden, Judge.

Alba Smith was convicted of seduction, and appeals. Reversed.

D. G F. Warner, for appellant.

M. M Larmonth, Pros. Atty., for the People.

CARPENTER J.

Defendant was convicted of the crime of seduction. The information charged that the offense was committed on the 30th of April, 1901, in the township of Homestead, in the county of Benzie. The complaining witness testified that she was 20 years old in August, 1901; that she had sexual intercourse with the defendant on or about the date named in the information, and also in February and early in April 1901; that on each of these occasions defendant promised that, if she got in the family way, he would marry her; that she became pregnant, and was delivered of a child on the 19th of January, 1902. At the conclusion of the people's case counsel for the defendant requested the court to instruct the jury 'to render a verdict of not guilty, as the evidence in the case disclosed * * * that respondent had intercourse with the complaining witness in February and April prior to the time charged. It follows that she is not a person who could be seduced at the time alleged in the complaint warrant, and information. And there has been no sufficient promise to marry proven. She could not be said to be a chaste person at the time alleged.' This request was denied, to which defendant excepted. In his charge to the jury, the court said: 'The girl, Miss Brown, has gone on the stand and testified that the respondent had, on every occasion when they had intercourse, promised to marry her. I charge you, as a matter of law, that, if this respondent did have sexual intercourse with this girl at the time alleged in the information, and, in order to persuade her to allow him to have such sexual intercourse, did make this promise, no matter whether he intended to carry this promise out or not, if this girl relied on his promises and inducements at that time, and allowed him to have sexual intercourse with her, and if she was a chaste character, then I charge you that the defendant is guilty of this crime as charged in the information.' To this part of the charge defendant assigns error. In the case of People v. Clark, 33 Mich. 112, the lower court permitted the jury to find the defendant guilty of seduction because of illicit intercourse in August, 1873, though the complaining witness testified that she had such intercourse with the defendant not only in August, but on the preceding 28th of July. In deciding this case the court said: 'We do not wish to be understood as saying that, even as between the same parties, there could not be a second, or even a third, act of seduction; but, where the subsequent alleged acts follow the first so closely, they destroy the presumption of chastity which would otherwise prevail, and there should be clear and satisfactory proof that the complainant had in truth and fact reformed; otherwise there could be no seduction. * * * And, although the female may have previously left the path of virtue on account of the seductive arts and persuasions of the accused or some other person, yet, if she has repented of that act, and reformed, she may again be seduced. We do not say that there may not have been a reformation in this case. Indeed, there may have been many, but they were unfortunately fleeting. Had a reasonable time elapsed between the different acts, a presumption in favor of a reformation might arise; but we think no such presumption could arise in this case, and that the burden of proving such reformation would be upon the prosecution.' This decision is decisive of the case at bar. As the people introduced no evidence whatever tending to show a reformation on the part of the complaining witness after the illicit intercourse of the preceding February and early in April, it was the duty of the court to direct the acquittal of defendant, as requested. There is, in our judgment, however, a more serious error in the case. All that the defendant did, according to the testimony of the complaining witness, to induce her to have illicit intercourse with him, was to promise to marry her if she became pregnant. Does sexual intercourse, induced by such a promise, constitute seduction? In the case of People v. De Fore, 64 Mich., at page 699, 31 N.W. 585, 8 Am. St....