State v. Blythe
| Decision Date | 02 November 1899 |
| Citation | 20 Utah 378,58 P. 1108 |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE OF UTAH, RESPONDENT v. JOHN A. BLYTHE, APPELLANT |
Appeal from the Third District Court, Salt Lake County, Hon. A. G. Norrell, Judge.
Appellant was charged by the information with and on the trial was convicted of the crime of rape. From a judgment of imprisonment entered on the verdict, defendant appealed.
Affirmed.
E. B Critchlow, Esq., for appellant.
Hon. A C. Bishop, Attorney General, and William A. Lee, Esq., Deputy Attorney General, for the State.
The record shows that the appellant was charged, by information, with the crime of rape, committed upon a little girl about six years old, and at the trial was convicted of an assault with an intent to commit rape. Judgment of imprisonment in the State prison for a period of seven years, having been rendered, this appeal was prosecuted.
The first contention on behalf of the prisoner is that the court erred in permitting the child to be sworn and testify against him. The objection is based on section 3413, R. S., which, so far as material here, provides that "children under ten years of age, who appear incapable of receiving just impressions of the facts respecting which they are examined, or of relating them truly," cannot be witnesses. As will be noticed this provision of the statute does not apply to all children under ten years of age, but to such only as "appear incapable of receiving just impressions of facts," concerning the subject of inquiry, or of stating them truly. The language used clearly implies that the disability or incompetency referred to must appear to the trial judge. When, therefore, objection is made to the competency of a child under ten years of age, it becomes a question addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the appellate court will not interfere, if the lower court, upon examination made upon its voir dire, or upon all of its testimony, concludes that the child is competent to testify, unless there is a clear abuse of discretion apparent from the record. Likewise, if the court concludes that the child is incompetent as a witness. And this for the reason that the trial court, having the witness before it, is better able to judge of its capability or incapability than the appellate court, whose judgment must be based wholly upon the record. Not age, but capability of receiving just impressions of facts and of relating them truly, are the tests of competency, under the statute. Hence if the child appears to have such capability, that is, to possess sufficient sense of the danger and impiety of false swearing, or is sensible of the wickedness of telling a deliberate lie, it may be admitted as a witness, regardless of its age. 4 Bl. Comm. 214; Whart. on Ev., Sec. 398; People v. Baldwin, 117 Cal. 244; People v. Craig, 111 Cal. 460, 44 P. 186; Milligan v. Territory, 2 Okla. 164, 37 P. 1059; State v. Jackson, 9 Ore. 457.
In the case at bar we perceive nothing which shows an abuse of discretion, on the part of the trial court, in permitting the child to testify. The statements, made upon her voir dire, as well as her testimony given during the trial, indicate that she was a competent witness.
It is also insisted that the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. Upon careful examination of the record, we perceive no error in the trial court's action on this point. The little girl testified distinctly to acts, on the part of the defendant, tending to show the commission of the offense charged, and her evidence on material points, as appears from the the transcript was corroborated by the testimony of other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smailes
...to rape, such action being beneficial and not prejudicial to the defendant. (State v. Garney, 45 Idaho 768, 265 P. 668; State v. Blythe, 20 Utah 378, 58 P. 1108; People v. Miller, 96 Mich. 119, 55 N.W. 675; re Lloyd, 51 Kan. 501, 33 P. 307; Pratt v. State, 51 Ark. 167, 10 S.W. 233; Richie v......
-
State v. Garney
...211, 46 Am. St. 234, 39 P. 607; State v. McLeavy, 157 Minn. 408, 196 N.W. 645; Pittman v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 58, 126 P. 696; State v. Blythe, 20 Utah 378, 58 P. 1108; v. State, 92 Ohio St. 167, 110 N.E. 644.) Where a female is under the age of consent there may be an assault to commit rape ......
-
State v. Smith
... ... even though no request is made for it, charge the jury with ... respect to the included offenses when the evidence so ... justifies ... This ... court has held that assault with intent to commit rape is ... included in the charge of statutory rape. State v ... Blythe, 20 Utah 378, 58 P. 1108. We are satisfied ... with this holding and see no reason to now abandon it. The ... reason for the rule is that a girl under the age of thirteen ... is by statute (Rev. St. 1933, 103-51-15) in [90 Utah 494] ... competent to consent to the act of intercourse, and it ... ...
-
State v. Winslow
... ... defendant may be convicted of an attempt to commit incest. ( ... State v. McGilvery, 20 Wash. 240, 55 P. 115; [30 ... Utah 410] People v. Gleason, 99 Cal. 359, 33 P ... 1111, 37 Am. St. Rep. 56; State v. Decker, 36 Kan ... 717, 14 P. 283; State v. Blythe, 20 Utah 378, 58 P ... 1108.) If the defendant had sexual intercourse with his ... daughter, he committed incest. If he attempted to have sexual ... intercourse with her, but failed, we see no reason why he ... cannot properly be convicted of an attempt to commit incest ... Here the evidence ... ...