State v. Connelly

• Decision Date: 15 June 1894
• Citation: 57 Minn. 482,59 N.W. 479
• Parties: STATE v. CONNELLY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

57 Minn. 482

59 N.W. 479

STATE

v.CONNELLY.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 15, 1894.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Certain evidence held not impeaching, in the sense of being statements of the witness contrary to what she testified to on the trial, but evidence of facts or acts tending to disprove the facts stated by the witness, and hence not requiring any foundation to be laid for its introduction by first calling her attention to it.

2. The uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix in this case being somewhat improbable, and being impeached in some particulars by her own previous inconsistent statements, and in other particulars by the testimony of other witnesses, held not sufficient to justify a conviction of the crime of rape.

Appeal from district court, St. Louis county; Charles L. Lewis, Judge.

James E. Connelly was convicted of rape, and appeals. Reversed.

Allen & Baldwin, for appellant.

H. W. Childs, Atty. Gen., John Dwan, and J. A. Hanks, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of rape, alleged to have been committed March 19, 1893, upon a girl of the age of 17 years. The girl was the foster daughter of one Thomas Hannon and wife, of whose family she had been a member for about 12 years. This family consisted of Mr. and Mrs. Hannon, the girl, and her three foster brothers, all of whom were young men. The family resided in the village of Two Harbors, in the county of Lake. The defendant was a priest, in charge of the Catholic church and congregation in that village, to which the Hannon family belonged. Some two days before the alleged commission of the offense, the defendant moved into a house next door to that of Hannons, his family consisting of his married sister and her child; also another woman, in the capacity of housekeeper. The latter, however, did not become an inmate of his house until a few days afterwards. The Hannons, including the girl, had some previous personal acquaintance with defendant while he was boarding at another house in the village. The defendant was convicted wholly upon the testimony of the prosecutrix. Without attempting to give it in full, her testimony may be fairly summarized as follows: She testified that on Sunday evening, March 19th, while she was on the porch of her own house, the defendant called her over to give her some pictures to put in her prayer book; that, upon going over, he took her upstairs into his bedroom; that she took a seat on a chair, and he on the bed; that, after conversing a short time on general subjects, defendant got a bottle of whisky out of a bureau drawer, poured some out into a glass, and drank it, and then poured out some more, and “put some stuff out of a little bottle into the glass with the liquor,” and asked her to drank it; that she at first declined, but he insisted, saying it was wine; that she thereupon drink it, and knows it was whisky; that she soon “got weak, and began falling over a little;” that thereupon he picked her up, and put her on the bed, and ravished her; that she resisted all she could, and “hollered,” but that he put his hands over her face, and accomplished his purpose by force; that, after the deed was committed, he got a revolver from his bureau, and, pointing it at her, told her he would kill her if she ever told; that she then returned home, and went to bed, it being then about 9 o'clock, or the usual hour for retiring, that she never made any complaint or told any one about the matter until the 25th of the following May, when she told one of her brothers; that the reason she did not tell was because she was afraid defendant would shoot her if she did. She further testified that subsequent to this, and up to the early part of May, the defendant repeatedly had sexual intercourse with her in this same upstairs bedroom in his own house; that he made her go up there, and told her she had to, sometimes when she was out in the yard, and sometimes when she had gone over to his house; that she submitted, and did what he ordered, because he threatened to kill her if she did not. She further testified that she never went over to his house except when defendant ordered her to come, or when her mother sent her. She also testified that she was pregnant by defendant. The particulars of her complaint to her foster brother on May 25th, of course, were not testified to, but it does appear that immediately afterwards the brother made complaint before a justice of the peace charging defendant with the crime of rape committed on May 4th. The testimony of the prosecutrix on this examination was in many particulars in conflict with her testimony on the trial on this indictment, but it is only fair to say that it appears that she was sick in bed, and quite weak, when she gave her...