State v. Elijah

• Citation: 206 Minn. 619,289 N.W. 575
• Decision Date: 12 January 1940
• Docket Number: No. 32225.,32225.
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
• Parties: STATE v. ELIJAH.

206 Minn. 619
289 N.W. 575

STATE
v.
ELIJAH.

No. 32225.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 12, 1940.

Appeal from District Court, Becker County; Don M. Cameron, Judge.

Clinton Elijah was convicted of carnal knowledge, and he appeals.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. In a prosecution for carnal knowledge, evidence of prior acts of sexual intercourse of the complaining witness with defendant is admissible as disclosing inclination of the parties to commit the act complained of and as corroborative of the specific charge.

2. Ordinarily evidence showing that the complaining witness had sexual intercourse with other men is not admissible in a prosecution for carnal knowledge.

3. Illicit relations between a witness and the victim of a crime may be shown to show bias, prejudice, interest and disposition of the witness to tell the truth.

4. Cross-examination to show illicit and other relations between a witness and the prosecuting witness is a matter of right, denial of which is abuse of discretion and prejudicial.

[289 N.W. 576]

C. U. Landrum and D. N. Lindeman, both of Detroit Lakes, for appellant.

J. A. A. Burnquist, Atty. Gen., M. Tedd Evans, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Carl G. Buck, Jr., Co. Atty., of Detroit Lakes, for respondent.

PETERSON, Justice.

Defendant was convicted of carnal knowledge and appeals. The prosecutrix claims that the act occurred on the evening of March 15, 1938. She testified that on the evening in question she went to the home of defendant's parents to borrow an egg beater; that defendant, who was then living at the home of his folks with his wife and child, gave her a ride home in his automobile, but that instead of going directly to her home they drove a short way beyond her home and committed the act in the automobile.

There were no eyewitnesses. To give weight to and bolster the story of the complaining witness the prosecution was permitted to show prior acts of intercourse between the prosecutrix and defendant, which it corroborated by one Hauder. The prosecutrix testified that she had had intercourse with defendant on October 31, 1937, while she, defendant, her brother, Hauder, his sister and another girl were out, as Hauder stated, ‘Halloweening’. She testified that on that occasion, she and defendant took a walk into a nearby woods and committed the act, while Hauder and the others repaired the automobile in which they all were riding.

Hauder as a state's witness testified that he saw defendant and the prosecutrix walk down the road, turn into the woods and that defendant told Hauder and the prosecutrix' brother that he ‘finally made it’, which was interpreted below as meaning that he had intercourse with her. Hauder lamented on the stand that he had not, when defendant told him of this affair, ‘taken a club and knocked’ defendant ‘over the head right then and there.’

There was testimony that the prosecutrix, Hauder, his sister and her brother had been going around together for several years.

The state's objections were sustained to inquiries put to Hauder, as to whether he, the prosecutrix, her brother and his own sister had not drunk the prosecuting witness's father's wine, how many times the four of them slept ‘alone’ in the father's

[289 N.W. 577]

house, whether the four had praked in a certain barnyard and whether he discussed with anyone the question of marriage with the girl. Defendant stated that the purpose of this line of inquiry was to test the credibility and veracity of the witness and his interest in the outcome of the prosecution. The prosecutrix had already been asked on cross-examination whether or not she had testified on the preliminary hearing to the facts which the questions evidently sought to elicit.

Defendant denied that he was out with the girl both on the night of March 15 and the previous Halloween and that he was ever to a party, when the girl was along, except when his wife was present. He claimed that on March 15, 1938, his car was in such disrepair that it could not be operated.

The rulings permitting the prosecution to show prior acts of intercourse between the parties, denying defendant leave to inquire about the alleged drinking of the wine, sleeping alone in the father's house, parking in the barnyard and the discussion of the marriage, and some others which we think do not merit discussion, are assigned as error.

1. Evidence of prior acts of intercourse between the girl and defendant was admissible as disclosing an inclination of the parties to commit the act complained of and as corroborative of the specific charge. State v. Wallen, 123 Minn. 128, 143 N.W. 119;State v. Schueller, 120 Minn. 26, 138 N.W. 937.

2. The cross-examination of the girl was to discredit her by showing that she drank intoxicating liquor and had sexual intercourse with Hauder, who had not then been called as a witness, and with other men. Cross-examination should not be permitted to show that the complaining witness in a carnal knowledge...