State v. McPadden

• Citation: 150 Minn. 62,184 N.W. 568
• Decision Date: 30 September 1921
• Docket Number: No. 22154.,22154.
• Parties: STATE v. McPADDEN.
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

150 Minn. 62

184 N.W. 568

STATE

v.McPADDEN.

No. 22154.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Sept. 30, 1921.

Appeal from District Court, Carver County; C. M. Tifft, Judge.

William McPadden was convicted of statutory rape, and from an order denying a new trial, he appeals. Order affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

In a prosecution for rape on a female under the age of consent, the fact of illicit relations with other men than defendant constitutes no defense, and evidence thereof is inadmissible either in justification or excuse.

The law withholds from her the right of consent, and her willingness or unwillingness is wholly immaterial.

In the case where pregnancy follows the act charged against defendant, he may show in refutation of any inference arising therefrom in corroboration of complainant that other men had illicit relations with her at about the same time.

But an offer to show such relations both ‘before and after’ the date charged against defendant is entirely too indefinite.

The evidence made the question of defendant's guilt one of fact, and the verdict is sustained by sufficient competent evidence.

The allegation in the indictment that complainant was an unmarried female under the age of 18 years sufficiently negatives any marital relations between the parties.

In a prosecution for statutory rape, evidence of prosecutrix's illicit acts with defendant prior and subsequent to date relied upon for conviction is admissible where not too remote. P. W. Morrison, of Norwood, for appellant.

Clifford L. Hilton, Atty. Gen., Jas. E. Markham, Asst. Atty. Gen., and W. F. Odell, Co. Atty., of Chaska, for the State.

BROWN, C. J.

Defendant was convicted of statutory rape upon a female child under the age of 18 years and appealed from an order denying a new trial.

The questions raised by the assignments of error do not call for extended consideration. The record presents nothing not found in the ordinary case of this character, and a brief reference to the points raised in support of the appeal will suffice.

[5] 1. The evidence of the commission of the crime by defendant as given by complainant, though directly and flatly denied by him, presented an issue of fact for the jury. We discover from the record no fact or circumstance to discredit complainant as a matter of judicial inference, or reason for declaring as a matter of law that the jury erroneously gave credence to her testimony. The record in this respect is the usual one found in such cases where there is a direct and irreconcilable conflict in the testimony of complainant and the accused. Their credibility was for the jury; and although counsel presented this feature of the case persuasively and with much earnestness in this court, in the belief of the innocence of his client, we are unable, after full consideration of the record, to concur in the contention that the verdict is unsupported by competent and reliable evidence. The case was one for the jury. They reported a verdict of guilty which the trial court approved, and there the matter must rest. State v. Johnson, 114 Minn. 493, 131 N. W. 629;State v. Bragdon, 136 Minn. 348,162 N. W. 462;State v. Deike, 144 Minn. 453, 175 N. W. 1000;State v. Rutledge, 142 Minn. 117, 171 N. W. 275.

[6] 2. The contention that the indictment is fatally defective in that it contains no allegation that complainant was not the wife of defendant is not sustained. The indictment does charge that she was an unmarried female under the age of 18 years. That conclusively negatives any marital relations between the parties.

[7] 3. The further point that there was error in the admission in evidence of prior and subsequent acts of intercourse between complainant and defendant is disposed of by our prior decision on the subject. The date of the offence as charged in the indictment was June 22, 1918. A prior act on the 14th of June and a subsequent act on July 4th are the acts so claimed to have been erroneously admitted. The precise point was involved in State v. Schueller, 120 Minn. 26, 138 N. W. 937,State v. Roby, 128 Minn. 187, 150 N. W. 793, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 360,171 N. W. 275,State v. Schtemme, 133 Minn. 184, 158 N. W. 48, and State v. Rutledge, 142 Minn. 117, and decided adversely to the contention here made. The South Dakota court in State v. Yeager, 41 S. D. 51, 168 N. W. 749, cited and relied upon by defendant, apparently followed the rule applied by some of the courts as to subsequent acts and rejected by this court in State v. Roby, supra. The rule must be taken as settled in this state that evidence of illicit acts with defendant prior and subsequent to the date of the charge relied upon by the state for conviction is admissible where not too remote in point of time. State v. Rutledge, supra.

[1][2] 4. The fact of illicit relations with other men in a prosecution for statutory rape on a female under the age of consent is no defense, and evidence thereof is inadmissible either in justification or excuse. Such evidence can have no effect as tending to show consent, for the law withholds from her the right to consent. The...