Rogers v. People

• Citation: 34 Mich. 345
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 20 June 1876
• Parties: Rodney Rogers v. The People

34 Mich. 345

Rodney Rogers v. The People

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 20, 1876

Heard June 14, 1876

Error to St. Clair Circuit.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, and the defendant surrendered to the sheriff of St. Clair county.

Chadwick & Voorheis, for plaintiff in error.

Andrew J. Smith, Attorney General, for the People.

OPINION

Graves, J.

Plaintiff in error was convicted of the crime of rape upon Rachel Betten, a girl about eighteen years old. The offense was alleged to have been committed in January, 1875, near Mill Creek, in St. Clair county, and the testimony tended to show that it was in the woods near the road and in plain view of it. She swore that in passing along the highway from a place called Ruby, towards her father's house, she fell in with defendant, and walked and conversed with him; that he insisted on carrying an oil can she had with her, and asked her to go into the woods to see an animal he said he had trapped; that she declined to go into the woods with him, and he caught her and took her in and then outraged her; that the act was committed about three o'clock in the afternoon and that immediately after its perpetration he left her and she went on to her father's; that on the way she stopped at the first house, being that of Mr. Welch, and then informed Mrs. Welch part of what had occurred. It is not necessary to detail all her testimony. In view of the circumstances, as she gave them, it was especially important that the jury should have laid before them whatever she could state having a legitimate bearing on the question whether the act imputed to defendant was against her will, and to this end it was incumbent on the court to be very tolerant to cross-examination of her. Whether the defendant should be convicted or not, depended upon her evidence, and the nature of the offense suggests the necessity for great caution where the proof is not very decided upon the fact of assent, however full upon the other points.

Now on her direct examination she swore that she related part of the transaction to Mrs. Welch, and also to her mother, and that she afterwards stated the whole of it to Mr. Welch, and went before Mr. Westbrook, a justice, and told it. She was then asked on cross examination if she told the whole voluntarily or whether others came and asked her about it, and also whether she wanted to prosecute defendant for what he did, or if she was told...