State v. Ferris
| Decision Date | 03 August 1908 |
| Citation | 81 Conn. 97,70 A. 587 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. FERRIS. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; George W. Wheeler, Judge.
Frederick Ferris was convicted of carnally knowing and abusing a female under 16 years of age, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Frederic A. Bartlett, Frederick D. Keeler, and Israel J. Cohn, for appellant.
Stiles Judson, State's Atty., for the State.
THAYER, J. Section 1148 of the General Statutes of 1902, under which the information was filed, provides that any person who shall carnally know and abuse any female under the age of 16 years shall be punished. The court instructed the jury that the terms "carnal knowledge" and "abuse," when applied to a female under the age of consent in such a statute, mean carnal knowledge, that "carnal knowledge" means sexual bodily connection or sexual intercourse, and that the term "abuse" is not to be construed independently and as compelling proof of injury to the genital organs in addition to carnal knowledge. The jury were then instructed that the state must prove an act of intercourse as charged, but need not prove, in addition, any injury to the genital organs. The defendant's first assignment of error questions the correctness of this portion of the charge. The charge was correct. The precise question here raised was before us and fully considered in a recent case. State v. Sebastian, 81 Conn. 1, 69 Atl. 1054. It is unnecessary to further consider it here.
The court properly instructed the jury that, as time is not of the essence of the offense charged, it was not essential to a conviction that the criminal act should be proved to have been committed on the precise day laid in the information, that a substantial compliance with the date was enough, and that a week before or a week after would be a substantial compliance with the proof as to time. The defendant objects to this portion of the charge both upon the ground that it is not a correct statement of the law and that as the state had offered evidence to prove, and claimed to have proved, that the criminal act was committed on the 2d day of July, as charged in the information, and no evidence had been offered to prove that it was committed on any other day, and as evidence of an alibi as to that date had been introduced by the defendant, the charge was unfair to him. The defendant claims that the state should have been confined to proof of an act committed on the precise day alleged in the information, because, as he c...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Morrill
...Stenz v. Sandstrom, 143 Conn. 72, 75, 118 A.2d 900 [1955]; State v. Horton, 132 Conn. 276, 277, 43 A.2d 744 [1945]; State v. Ferris, 81 Conn. 97, 99, 70 A. 587 [1908]." State v. Ramos, 176 Conn. 275, 276-77, 407 A.2d 952 (1978); see also State v. Orsini, 187 Conn. 264, 274, 445 A.2d 887, ce......
-
State v. Albert
...rule, the Supreme Court defined "carnal knowledge" as sexual intercourse. See State v. Dubina, supra, 164 Conn. 97; State v. Ferris, 81 Conn. 97, 99, 70 A. 587 (1908). Sexual intercourse always had its ordinary Public Acts 1969, No. 828, § 66, which went into effect in October, 1971, and wa......
-
State v. Laracuente
...an essential factor if "the date should become material in some way, as where a defense of alibi is to be made." See State v. Ferris, 81 Conn. 97, 100, 70 A. 587 (1908); State v. Bowman, 3 Conn.App. 148, 155, 485 A.2d 1343 The defendant claims actual prejudice in the preparation and present......
-
State v. Victor C.
...not file an alibi defense does not present an abnormality. See State v. Horton, 132 Conn. 276, 277, 43 A.2d 744 (1945); State v. Ferris, 81 Conn. 97, 99, 70 A. 587 (1908). The defendant was aware that he was on trial for charges stemming from a single incident involving alleged sexual abuse......