State v. Peoples

• Decision Date: 19 April 1900
• Citation: 82 N.W. 749,9 N.D. 146
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

82 N.W. 749

9 N.D. 146

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA v. JOHN PEOPLES

Supreme Court of North Dakota

April 19, 1900

Appeal from District Court, Walsh County; Sauter, J.

John Peoples was convicted of crime, and appeals.

Affirmed.

Gray & McMurchie, for appellant.

Spencer & Sinkler, for the State.

OPINION

WALLIN, J.

This action is brought under the statute regulating bastardy proceedings. The complaining witness was never married, but was delivered of a bastard child, born alive, on the 16th day of May, 1898, which child was living at the time of the trial. She charges the defendant with the paternity of the child, and alleges that she had sexual intercourse with defendant at the township of Prairie Center, in Walsh county on or about August 15, 1897. The defendant's answer consists of a general denial of the allegations of the complaint. The verdict declared, in effect, that the defendant was the father of the child in question.

At the close of the testimony, defendant moved for a directed verdict in his favor. This motion was denied, and the ruling is assigned as error in this court. No exception was taken to the instructions given to the jury, but defendant claims that the verdict is not justified by the evidence, and that the same is contrary to law; i. e. against the instructions given by the trial court to the jury. In all prosecutions under this statute, the pivotal inquiry is whether or not the person accused is the father of a particular illegitimate child; and in this case the plaintiff had the burden of showing, as an ultimate fact, that the defendant is the father of the child of which the complaining witness was delivered on May 16, 1898. The evidence in the case was all admitted without objection, and we find in the record ample evidence sustaining the charge as made in the complaint. It appears that the complaining witness and defendant were employed by a cousin of the defendant, who was operating a large farm in Walsh county. Defendant was a farm hand on the farm, and the complaining witness was a domestic servant at the farm house situated on the farm. Such employment had continued for a period of over two years prior to August 15, 1897, and existed for some time subsequent to that date. The fact that sexual intercourse had occurred with more or less frequency between these parties prior to and subsequent to August 15, 1897, was fully testified to by the complaining witness. Nor did the defendant attempt to deny the general fact of sexual intercourse with the complaining witness. On the contrary, on his direct examination the defendant testified as follows: "I did not have sexual intercourse with her at all after the 10th of July and before the 10th of September. I did not have sexual intercourse between the 10th of July and the 10th of September." He further testified that he did not have such intercourse on the 5th of September, 1897. This certainly does not deny intercourse at any time. On his cross-examination the defendant squarely admitted that he had sexual intercourse with the complaining witness on the 12th day of September, 1897. The complaining witness in her direct examination was explicit as to the intercourse, and as to the date of one act of intercourse with the defendant. She testified in chief as follows: "He had sexual intercourse with me on the 15th of August last (referring to 1897). It was at Henry Peoples' place. He had sexual intercourse with me more than once. I do not know how many times,--quite a number. I became pregnant as a result of having sexual intercourse with him." There was an infant in the court at the trial, and the complaining witness, pointing to the infant, said "That is the baby. John People is the father of that baby." After testifying that she had intercourse with defendant on August 15, 1897, she said on cross-examination that the only means she had of fixing the date was by counting back nine months from the time the child was born." She...