State v. Roby, No. 18900[6].

• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
• Writing for the Court: HALLAM
• Citation: 150 N.W. 793,128 Minn. 187
• Parties: STATE v. ROBY.
• Decision Date: 15 January 1915
• Docket Number: No. 18900[6].

128 Minn. 187
150 N.W. 793

STATE
v.
ROBY.

No. 18900[6].

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 15, 1915.

Appeal from District Court, Nicollet County; I. M. Olsen, Judge.

Harry Roby was convicted of carnal knowledge and abuse of a female child between the age of 10 and 14 years, and he appeals. Affirmed.

[150 N.W. 793]

Syllabus by the Court

In a prosecution for the crime of carnal knowledge of a female child under 14, alleged to have been committed May 20th, evidence of a second offense committed upon the person of the same child on June 2d is admissible. Where the county attorney at the close of the state's case expressly elected to proceed to judgment upon the first charge, it is unimportant whether or not the method of proof followed by the state constituted an implied election to so proceed.

Where two offenses of this character are proven, it is not error for the court to refuse to require the state to elect upon which charge it will proceed until the close of the state's case.

The county attorney called the wife of defendant as a witness for the state. Defendant claimed his statutory privilege and excluded her testimony. Held, the action of the county attorney in calling the wife was not misconduct, though defendant, before he was indicted, had notified the county attorney that he would object to the evidence of his wife either before the grand jury or elsewhere or otherwise.

Certain conduct of the court and of the county attorney reviewed and held to be not improper.

R. G. Anderson and M. E. Stone, both of St. Peter (Thos. Hessian, of Le Sueur, of counsel), for appellant.

Lyndon A. Smith, Atty. Gen., John C. Nethaway, Asst. Atty. Gen., and George T. Olsen, of St. Peter, for the State.

HALLAM, J.

Defendant was convicted of the crime of carnal knowledge and abuse of a female child between the age of 10 and 14 years. There is evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict. This is conceded, but defendant assigns several errors which he urges as ground for a new trial.

[1] The complaining witness, when called by the state, testified to the commission of an offense, such as charged in the indictment, about May 20th, and to a second offense of the same kind about June 2d. Defendant at once asked the court to rule that the state by first introducing evidence of an act committed May 20th elected by implication to rely on that date as the true date. The court refused to so rule. It could make no difference whether there was an implied election or not. May 20th was the date upon which the prosecution finally proceeded and upon which the conviction was based. It is accordingly unimportant whether the state could have proceeded to judgment on a charge based

[150 N.W. 794]

upon any other date. It did not undertake to do so.

It is urged that on a prosecution for an offense committed on May 20th, evidence of a second offense committed June 2d was not properly in the case. The court was asked to strike out this evidence, and its refusal to do so is assigned as error. It is quite well settled that in this class of carnal crimes, evidence of similar offenses committed prior to the date charged may properly be received. It is contended, however, that evidence of offenses subsequently committed is not admissible. This subject was considered in State v. Schueller, 120 Minn. 26, 138 N. W. 937. In view of the line of argument followed by the attorneys for the state, it is proper here to say that no significance is attached to the fact that the acts to which the evidence related all occurred prior to June 25th, the date charged in the indictment. The significant date is the date upon which the state relies for conviction, and the question is whether it is proper to receive proof of acts subsequent to this date. In the Schueller Case the subject is discussed with reference to the date charged ‘in the indictment,’ but in that case the date charged in the indictment and in the proof was the same. It was made clear in the Schueller Case that the courts are divided on the question of the propriety of receiving proof of later offenses. It is there said, however, that ‘it may well be doubted whether there is any real or substantial basis for the distinction’ between evidence of earlier and later offenses. Evidence of other offenses, when admissible at all, is received by way of corroboration of the main charge, and on the theory that the commission of other similar acts tends to show opportunity and inclination to commit the crime with which the defendant is charged. Presumption of continuance of a condition once shown to exist may enter into consideration, but it is not the controlling factor, and we think that evidence of subsequent acts within the limit of reasonable time may be received. We have no doubt that in a case of this sort, evidence of commission of an act of the same character within less than two weeks after the date of...