State v. Krantz

• Decision Date: 12 October 1917
• Docket Number: No. 20446.,20446.
• Citation: 164 N.W. 579,138 Minn. 114
• Parties: STATE v. KRANTZ.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

138 Minn. 114

164 N.W. 579

STATE

v.KRANTZ.

No. 20446.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Oct. 12, 1917.

Appeal from District Court, St. Louis County; J. D. Ensign, Judge.

Henry E. Krantz was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape, and from an order denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and for a new trial, he appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Evidence considered, and held sufficient to sustain a conviction of assault with intent to commit rape.

It is competent, in a prosecution for assault with intent to commit rape, to give in evidence a declaration of the fact made to her close friend at the first opportunity and shortly after the transaction, in corroboration of her testimony.

If a man assaults a woman with intent to have intercourse with her by force and against her will, the crime of assault with intent to commit rape is complete.

The use of force in an endeavor to have carnal knowledge of a woman, tends to show an intent to commit rape, and if the evidence satisfies the jury that the defendant used such force and so conducted himself as to evince an intention to commit rape, it is sufficient to sustain a conviction of an assault with an intent to commit rape. Fryberger, Fulton & Spear and Lathers & Hoag, all of Duluth, for appellant.

Lyndon A. Smith, Atty. Gen., James E. Markham, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Warren E. Greene and Mason M. Forbes, both of Duluth, for the State.

QUINN, J.

The defendant was indicted, charged with the crime of rape, committed by forcibly overcoming the resistance of the prosecutrix. In opening the case to the jury the prosecuting attorney stated that the state sought a conviction only for assault with intent to commit rape and in its charge the court submitted only that offense to the jury. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of an assault with intent to commit rape. From an order denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or for a new trial, defendant appealed.

The testimony shows that at the time of the alleged assault the complainant was but 17 years of age; that she lived with her mother, and when not in school worked at various kinds of employment; that on Saturday, January 15, 1916, she obtained employment with the defendant in his meat market in Duluth, through an employment bureau; that the defendant was 50 years of age, with a family consisting of his wife and two grown daughters, one of whom worked in the market, which was conducted in a room having a glass front and facing upon one of the public streets of the city; that this room was divided by a board partition, which had a door and window in it, the front room being used for the market and the back room as an office and work place, having an outside door at the rear.

The complainant testified that on the morning of January 17, 1916, she arrived at the market at half past 7 o'clock; that the defendant arrived shortly thereafter; that he then built a fire in the office, and that both she and the defendant worked about the place until the daughter arrived, some two hours later, when the defendant left to attend to other business and did not return until about 4 o'clock, in the afternoon; that she and the daughter worked about the market during the day, and that upon the return of the defendant the daughter went home; that defendant then worked in the market until about 6 o'clock, when he came into the office, shutting the door behind him; that he then went to the rear door and tried it, and it was locked, and then approached complainant, making some indecent remark and putting his arm around her waist; that she pushed his arm away, and that he then grabbed her violently and a scuffle followed; that she nearly got away from him, when she stumbled backward over a chair, and he committed the act complained of in the indictment; that when she got up and away from him she grabbed her hat and cloak and rushed out, going to the home of her friend, Katherine Ellis, a distance of some 18 blocks; that when she arrived at the Ellis home the family were sitting down to supper, and she went into the bathroom and there told Miss Ellis what had happened. Katherine Ellis testified that the complainant had lived with her when attending high school and worked for her board; that she came to the Ellis home on the evening in question at about a quarter of 7; that her hair was all down, her stocking cap hung from the top of her head, her cloak was all unbuttoned, her hands bare, her face all streaked with tears, and she looked very untidy. The prosecuting attorney then asked the witness the following question: ‘Q. What complaint did she make to you?’ The defendant objected to the question as being immaterial, irrelevant, not part of the res gestae, and being too remote in point of time. The objection...