State v. Seaburg
Decision Date | 18 September 1958 |
Parties | STATE of Maine v. Carl SEABURG. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
David R. Hastings, II, Co. Atty., Fryeburg, for plaintiff.
Berman & Berman, Lewiston, Dow & Dow, Norway, for defendant.
Before WILLIAMSON, C. J., and WEBBER, TAPLEY, SULLIVAN, and DUBORD, JJ.
A jury found the respondent guilty of taking indecent liberties with a male person of the age of 15 years. R.S. (1954) c. 134, § 6. During the trial exceptions were taken to the admission of testimony and to the refusal of the presiding Justice to instruct the jury as requested. After verdict a motion was made to have the verdict set aside and a new trial granted. Upon the denial of such motion the respondent appealed. He now prosecutes his exceptions and appeal.
Exception 1.
The complaining witness in direct examination over the objection of the defense was asked by the prosecuting attorney the following question concerning indecent liberties by the respondent and was permitted to make the ensuing reply:
The testimony was offered and admitted by the Court as relevant for any significance it might afford in characterizing any relationship between the respondent and the complaint.
There was no error. The situation here, the question, the ground assigned to justify it and the ruling of the Court are patterned almost identically from the decided case and precedent of this Court in State v. Norton, 1955, 151 Me. 178, 180, 116 A.2d 635.
The respondent protests that 'the County Attorney must be presumed to have known what the answer would have been and if he knew that the answer was going to be' yes, 'then the only purpose of asking the question was to lay the foundation of the building up of prejudice in the minds of the jury against the respondent.'
The question was proper and the answer proved to be favorable rather than detrimental to the respondent.
Exception 2.
With the defense opposing, the witness was then interrogated by the State as to any indecent liberties practiced upon him by the respondent subsequent to those precisely charged in the indictment and in the specifications supplied thereunder and was permitted to recite that there had been some three more of such defilements over the period of time extending from November to the next January. Such evidence was received as pertinent to the topic of relationship between the respondent and the witness.
The challenged testimony was not admitted nor was it admissible in proof of the particular offense of which the respondent was accused here.
State v. Acheson, 1898, 91 Me. 240, 243, 39 A. 570, 571. See Wigmore on Evidence, 3d Ed., Vol. 1, § 194, p. 646.
The testimony was entertained for a carefully discriminated, refined and relevant purpose.
'* * * to prove the mutual disposition of the parties, and to illustrate the nature of the intimacy shown by their conduct on the occasion in question; * * *' State v. Acheson, 91 Me. 240, 244, 39 A. 570, 572.
State v. Witham, 1881, 72 Me. 531, was a trial upon an indictment for adultery. This Court said at page 535:
* * *'
In State v. Williams, 1884, 76 Me. 480, 481, also upon the issue of adultery, we find:
State v. Witham and State v. Williams, supra, were cases of contested accusation of adultery while the case at bar is one of a charge of indecent liberties. Yet, that accidental distinction notwithstanding, the evidentiary determinations of this Court in the Witham and Williams precedents are soundly applicable to the problem of admissibility of the evidence which comprises the subject matter of respondent's Exception 2. The same decisive rationale serves equally well to demonstrate the competency, relevance and fairness of the controverted evidence in each of the three cases. The rules for attaining, pertinent truth without prejudicial harm are constant and uniform in all three cases.
State v. Kornegger, 1953, 363 Mo. 968, 255 S.W.2d 765, was a trial for indecent liberties with a female child of 7 years. Evidence of such a transgression subsequent in time to the specific or principal offense described in the indictment was admitted. The Court, in holding the evidence proper, said, 255 S.W.2d 768:
'* * * But we think that under the above stated exceptions, and under the instant circumstances, the above stated events which subsequently occurred on April 19 were clearly admissible to establish not only the identity of the defendant and a common scheme and plan as to this prosecutrix but also as 'corroborative evidence to show a disposition upon the part of the accused and as tending to support the specific offense' for which defendant was on trial * * *'
State v. Mitchell, 1948, 253 Wis. 626, 34 N.W.2d 661, was a trial for indecent liberties with a 14 year old girl.
'Defendant also contends that there was error on the trial by the introduction of Shirley's testimony as to similar acts of such unlawful misconduct by defendant in relation to her at other times.
* * *'34 N.W.2d 662.
In People v. LaMantain, 1949, 89 Cal.App.2d 699, 201 P.2d 598, the defendant had been convicted of committing lewd and lascivious acts upon the body of a female child under the age of 7 years. Evidence of 2 such offenses, one on a Friday in February and another on the following Tuesday, had been introduced by the State. The law of California held the State to an election by the very act of the prosecution in presenting evidence of the offense of the earlier date. The Court held that the following instruction was without reproach, 201 P.2d 599:
State v. Sebastian, 1908, 81 Conn. 1, 69 A. 1054, was a prosecution upon an indictment for carnally knowing and abusing a female child of less than 15 years. There were 2 counts for two separate violations, one committed on April 9, 1907 and the other, between April 1 and August 12, 1907. The State elected to rely totally upon the first count. Testimony was introduced by the prosecutor of sexual intercourse on April 8th or 9th and of such...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Jones
...establish the necessary elements of a crime are question of law for the court. People v. Holt, 25 Cal.2d 59, 153 P.2d 21; State v. Seaburg, 154 Me. 162, 145 A.2d 550; State v. Smith, 140 Me. 255, 37 A.2d 246; Dawson v. State, 83 Okl.Cr. 263, 175 P.2d The majority point to no facts which dis......
-
State v. Cutshaw
...77 Cal.App.2d 341, 175 P.2d 846, 848, 77 A.L.R.2d 907 (1946); People v. Oliver, 29 Cal.App. 576, 156 P. 1005 (1916); State v. Seaburg, 154 Me. 162, 145 A.2d 550 (1958); State v. Williams, 236 Or. 18, 386 P.2d 461 (1963); Birdsell v. State, 205 Tenn. 631, 330 S.W.2d 1 (1959); Annot., 77 A.L.......
-
State v. DeLong
...for indecent liberties with a minor); State v. Norton, 151 Me. 178, 181, 116 A.2d 635, 636-37 (1955) (same); State v. Seaburg, 154 Me. 162, 163-78, 145 A.2d 550, 551-59 (1958) (same). Cf. State v. Bennett, 117 Me. 113, 115-16, 102 A. 974, 975 (1918) (evidence of prior acts similar to charge......
-
State v. Johnson
...definition of "reasonably" was not prejudicial error where the defendant did not request any further clarification. Cf. State v. Seaburg, 154 Me. 162, 145 A.2d 550 (1958) (no prejudice from court's failure to define Finally, the defendant argues that the court erred in saying that he could ......