State v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 02 June 1911
• Docket Number: 17,168 - (5)
• Citation: 131 N.W. 629,114 Minn. 493
• Parties: STATE v. JOHN W. JOHNSON
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

131 N.W. 629

114 Minn. 493

STATE v. JOHN W. JOHNSON

Nos. 17,168 - (5)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

June 2, 1911

Defendant was indicted by the grand jury of Le Sueur county of the crime of carnally knowing and abusing a female child under the age of eighteen years. He pleaded not guilty, and was tried before Morrison, J., and a jury which found defendant guilty as charged in the indictment. From the order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Conviction sustained by evidence.

Evidence held sufficient to justify a conviction under an indictment charging the carnal knowledge and abuse of a female child of the age of thirteen years.

Rape -- evidence admissible.

Evidence of pregnancy, following the intercourse with defendant, and the subsequent birth of a child, held properly received in corroboration of the charge of the carnal knowledge.

Misconduct of counsel.

Assignments of error charging misconduct on the part of the prosecuting attorney held not sustained by the record.

Charles C. Kolars, for appellant.

George T. Simpson, Attorney General, and Francis J. Hanzel, County Attorney, for the State.

OPINION

BROWN, J.

Defendant was convicted of carnally knowing and abusing a female child of the age of thirteen years, and appealed from an order denying a new trial.

1. Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to justify the conviction. In this we do not concur. The prosecutrix testified that on June 4, 1909, the time charged in the indictment, defendant had carnal knowledge of her person with her consent. She detailed the facts and circumstances, the time and place, with clearness, and, though uncorroborated as to the commission of the act by defendant, her testimony, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to justify the verdict, notwithstanding defendant's specific denial. State v. Connelly, 57 Minn. 482, 59 N.W. 479; State v. Hjerpe, 109 Minn. 270, 123 N.W. 474; 3 Dunnell, Minn. Digest, 2. As remarked by the court in State v. Newman, 93 Minn. 393, 101 N.W. 499: "If the testimony of the girl named in the indictment be true -- and of this the jury were the judges -- the offense was committed by the defendant." That some person had intercourse with the prosecutrix at about the time charged in the indictment was conclusively established by the fact that she became pregnant and was subsequently delivered of a child. Her story of her relations with the defendant contains no inherent improbabilities, she was not impeached by any previous inconsistent statements of a character to discredit her, or by other witnesses in any matter of substance or particular importance, and a careful examination of the whole record presents no sufficient reason for interference by this court.

2. It is contended that the court below erred in admitting evidence of the fact that prosecutrix became pregnant and was delivered of a child on February 23, 1910. There was no error in this ruling. The evidence was conclusive that some person had intercourse with prosecutrix. She testified that no other persons than defendant had such relations with her at about the date charged in the indictment. She also testified, without objection, that defendant had intercourse with her several times prior to that date, and during the months of May and April preceding. While she admitted that some boys about her age had improper...