State v. Perry

• Decision Date: 20 January 1922
• Docket Number: No. 22766.,22766.
• Citation: 186 N.W. 310,151 Minn. 217
• Parties: STATE v. PERRY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

151 Minn. 217

186 N.W. 310

STATE

v.PERRY.

No. 22766.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 20, 1922.

Appeal from District Court, Winona County; C. E. Callaghan, Judge.

John Perry was convicted of carnally knowing a female child.Questions certified on motion for new trial.Questions answered.

Syllabus by the Court

In a prosecution for carnal knowledge of a female child under the age of consent, evidence of illicit relations of complainant with persons other than defendant is inadmissible as bearing upon the credibility of the testimony of prosecutrix.

Where pregnancy follows a charge of carnal knowledge, defendant may, for the purpose of refuting any inference arising therefrom, offer proof that other men had had illicit relations with complainant within the time when conception might have taken place.

We find no reversible error in the instructions relative to the birth of the child being corroborative proof of the offense charged.Webber, George ,& Owen, of Winona, for appellant.

C. L. Hilton, Atty. Gen., Jas. E. Markham, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Earl Simpson, County Atty., of Winona, for the State.

QUINN, J.

Defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of carnally knowing, on November 7, 1920, a female child of the age of 14 years.He moved for a new trial, and, upon hearing, the court, being of the opinion that the questions raised were doubtful and of such importance as to require the decision of this court, certified five questions for review, all of which may be considered under two headings: (1) Was it error to limit the cross-examination of the prosecuting witness to instances within the time when conception might have taken place, and to exclude testimony of other witnesses as to admissions claimed to have been made by the prosecutrix of having had illicit relations with persons other than defendant outside of such period?(2) Did the court err in its charge relative to the birth of a child being corroborative proof that the accused was guilty of the offense charged?

[1] The prosecutrix was delivered of a child in August, 1921.The child was exhibited in evidence.Upon cross-examination of the prosecuting witness defendant attempted to show particular acts of illicit relations on her part with others than the defendant, without reference to time, and by other witnesses admissions on her part of having had illicit relations with other men outside of such period.The offer was excluded as being too indefinite as to time; the court holding that to render the same admissible the acts referred to must have been within the time when conception might have taken place.In this state the age of consent is fixed by statuteat 18 years.In a prosecution for carnal knowledge of a female under the age of consent, evidence of illicit relations of the prosecutrix with others than defendant, as bearing upon her credibility, is inadmissible.22 Corpus Juris, § 579, p. 481;People v. Johnson, 106 Cal. 289, 39 Pac. 622;State v. Hammock, 18 Idaho, 424, 110 Pac. 169;State v. Smith, 18 S. D. 341, 100 N. W. 740;People v. Abbott, 97 Mich. 484, 56 N. W. 862,37 Am. St. Rep. 360.But where pregnancy follows the act charged, defendant may, for the purpose of refuting any inference arising therefrom, offer proof that other men had illicit relations with the complainant with the time when conception might have taken place.State v. McPadden, 184 N....