State v. Peres
| Citation | 27 Mont. 358 |
| Case Date | January 15, 1903 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Montana |
27 Mont. 358
STATE
v.
PERES.
Supreme Court of Montana.
Jan. 15, 1903.
Appeal from district court, Cascade county; J. B. Leslie, Judge.
Camile Peres was convicted of statutory rape, and appeals. Affirmed.
T. E. Brady, for appellant.
Jas. Donovan, Atty. Gen., for the State.
HOLLOWAY, J.
The defendant, Camile Peres, was convicted of the crime of rape committed on the person of one Adrienne Baque, a female under the age of 16 years, and from the judgment and an order denying his motion for a new trial he appeals.
On the trial of the cause the prosecuting witness was permitted, over the objection of the defendant, to testify to acts of intercourse between herself and the defendant prior to the act complained of and for which the defendant was then being tried. This is assigned as error. While there may be some slight conflict in the authorities on this point, confessedly the great weight of authority is in favor of the admissibility of this class of evidence; not to prove substantive offenses upon which conviction might be had, but in corroboration and explanation of the testimony concerning the commission of the act charged. People v. Jenness, 5 Mich. 305; Whart. Cr. Ev. (8th Ed.) § 35; People v. O'Sullivan, 104 N. Y. 481, 10 N. E. 880, 58 Am. Rep. 530;Mitchell v. People (Colo. Sup.) 52 Pac. 671. In State v. Robinson (Or.) 48 Pac. 357, in discussing the precise question under consideration, the court says: “It is next insisted that the court was in error in allowing the prosecution to give evidence tending to show more than one act of criminal intercourse between the defendant and the prosecutrix. The reason assigned for the objection to this testimony is that it violates the rule which prohibits evidence of a distinct crime unconnected with that alleged in the indictment to be given against the prisoner. As a general rule, the principle invoked is unquestioned, although there are in fact many exceptions, which it is unnecessary to point out at this time, as the authorities fully sustain the competency of the evidence offered and admitted in this case, not for the purpose of proving a different offense, but to show the relation and familiarity of the parties, and as corroborative of the prosecutrix's testimony concerning the particular act relied upon for a conviction. Strang v. People, 24 Mich. 6;People v. Abbott, 97 Mich. 484, 56 N. W. 862, 37 Am. St. Rep. 360;Com. v. Merriam, 14 Pick. 518, 25 Am. Dec. 420;Hardtke v. State, 67 Wis. 552, 30 N. W. 723;Taylor v. State, 22 Tex. App. 529, 3 S. W. 753;People v. O'Sullivan, 104 N. Y. 481, 10 N. E. 880, 58 Am. Rep. 530. It was for this purpose alone the evidence in question was admitted, as expressly stated at the trial court at the time, and as subsequently fully explained to the jury in the charge.” In this connection it is urged that the court erred in giving instruction numbered 8, in which the jury was told that the evidence of prior acts of intercourse between the prosecutrix and defendant was admitted only for the purpose of corroborating her testimony regarding the commission of the act charged. On the argument of this cause counsel for defendant admits that, if the evidence was properly admitted, the instruction was proper, and, having disposed of the former question above, its determination likewise disposes of this.
It is next urged that the district court erred in permitting the prosecutrix to testify that on Wednesday after the Friday on which the alleged crime was committed she told her teacher, Miss Sutton, the fact that she had been raped, and repeated this to all of the teachers on the Monday following; the contention being that a considerable time had elapsed, with good opportunity for her to have told of the occurrence; and that her statement was not voluntary, in that it was elicited by her teacher by repeated questioning....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Battles v. State
...the evidence of witnesses testifying thereto. People v. Grauer, 12 App. Div. 464, 42 N. Y. Supp. 721. To same effect, see State v. Peres, 27 Mont. 358, 71 Pac. 162; Reg. v. Chambers, 3 Cox, C. C. 92. In a prosecution for an assault with intent to commit rape, it has been held in this state ......
-
State v. Troupe, 14882
...456, 239 N.W.2d 627 (1976); Carr v. State, 208 So.2d 886 (Miss.1968); State v. Van Doren, 657 S.W.2d 708 (Mo.App.1983); State v. Peres, 27 Mont. 358, 71 P. 162 (1903); State v. Daniels, 222 Neb. 850, 388 N.W.2d 446 (1986); State v. Campbell, 20 Nev. 122, 17 P. 620 (1888); State v. Lynch, 94......
-
State v. Mackey
...410, 71 N.E. 389; Parker v. State, 67 Md. 329, 1 Am. St. Rep. 387, 10 A. 219; State v. Pollard, 174 Mo. 607, 74 S.W. 969; State v. Peres, 27 Mont. 358, 71 P. 162; 33 Cyc. 1468. The statement must be a part of res gestae. It was not so in this case. State v. Murphy, 17 N.D. 58, 17 L.R.A.(N.S......
-
State v. Just, 14197
...(1951), 125 Mont. 109, 111-16, 232 P.2d 731, 731-34; State v. Gaimos (1916), 53 Mont. 118, 124, 162 P. 596, 599; State v. Peres (1903), 27 Mont. 358, 360, 71 P. 162, The above rules and exception have also recently been codified in Rule 404(b), Mont.R.Evid.: "(b) Other crimes, wrongs, acts.......
-
State v. Troupe, No. 14882
...456, 239 N.W.2d 627 (1976); Carr v. State, 208 So.2d 886 (Miss.1968); State v. Van Doren, 657 S.W.2d 708 (Mo.App.1983); State v. Peres, 27 Mont. 358, 71 P. 162 (1903); State v. Daniels, 222 Neb. 850, 388 N.W.2d 446 (1986); State v. Campbell, 20 Nev. 122, 17 P. 620 (1888); State v. Lynch, 94......
-
Battles v. State
...the evidence of witnesses testifying thereto. People v. Grauer, 12 App. Div. 464, 42 N. Y. Supp. 721. To same effect, see State v. Peres, 27 Mont. 358, 71 Pac. 162; Reg. v. Chambers, 3 Cox, C. C. 92. In a prosecution for an assault with intent to commit rape, it has been held in this state ......
-
State v. Just, No. 14197
...(1951), 125 Mont. 109, 111-16, 232 P.2d 731, 731-34; State v. Gaimos (1916), 53 Mont. 118, 124, 162 P. 596, 599; State v. Peres (1903), 27 Mont. 358, 360, 71 P. 162, The above rules and exception have also recently been codified in Rule 404(b), Mont.R.Evid.: "(b) Other crimes, wrongs, acts.......
-
State v. Searle, No. 9069
...ADAIR, C. J., and BOTTOMLY and FREEBOURN, concur. METCALF, Justice (dissenting). Since the decision of this court in State v. Peres, 27 Mont. 358, 71 P. 162, a uniform rule respecting the admissibility of evidence of other similar offenses has been repeatedly applied. The rule has been vari......