State v. Shettleworth
| Decision Date | 01 January 1873 |
| Citation | 18 Minn. 191 |
| Parties | STATE OF MINNESOTA v. HENRY SHETTLEWORTH. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Thomas Wilson and J. Q. Farmer, for appellant.
F. R. E. Cornell, Atty. Gen., for the State.
On the trial of an indictment for rape, the rule established is that the state may introduce evidence of complaint by the prosecutrix of the outrage upon her person, made recently after its occurrence, together with marks of violence upon her person. 2 Bish. Crim. Proc. § 963. If some delay in making complaint by the prosecutrix has transpired, the delay may be explained and excused by proof of sufficient cause therefor. State v. Knapp, 45 N. H. 148; State v. DeWolf, 8 Conn. 93.
This case comes before us upon a bill of exceptions, which does not purport to state all the testimony upon the point of this complaint. There is nothing in the record which shows that the delay in this case could not have been explained; on the contrary, the bill of exceptions presents a case which would reasonably admit of explanation and excuse. We must, therefore, presume that there was testimony excusing the delay, and rendering the evidence of the complaint by the prosecutrix admissible.
It appears from the bill of exceptions that the prosecutrix testified that the defendant committed the rape upon her on the twentieth of September, 1871; that the prosecutrix had met her father at the house of the defendant, where he took dinner, the day following the day on which the rape was alleged to have been committed, or the next day thereafter.
It also appears that the prosecutrix remained in the house, and in the service of defendant, until Saturday, the twenty-eighth of September, 1871, when she left and returned to her father's house, where she remained for two or three days, and then went to live with and to work for one Mrs. Ayres. Abraham Rexford, father of the prosecutrix, having been called as a witness for the state, and having testified that his daughter, the prosecutrix, made complaint to him three or more days after she had gone to the house of Mrs. Ayers as aforesaid, was asked this question by the counsel for the state, viz.: "What seemed to be the [her] appearance and condition during the interval after she left Shettleworth's until she made complaint to you?" which was objected to by the defendant as incompetent and inadmissible. The court overruled the objection, to which the defendant excepted, and the witness answered: "She seemed to be down-hearted and gloomy, as though there was something she wanted to tell, but dare not."
The purpose for which this question was asked, and the answer received, is not stated. If the object was to corroborate the testimony of the prosecutrix that the defendant had had connection with her by force, and against her will, it is clearly not admissible for such purpose. But it will readily be suggested that facts may have been proved, in connection with which the evidence would be proper, for the purpose of explaining and excusing the delay of the prosecutrix in making complaint of the outrage, and since, as we have seen, the bill of exceptions does not purport to state all the testimony received, we will presume that there was testimony not contained in the bill which rendered this evidence proper for the purpose last stated. Day v. Raguet, 14 Minn. 274, (Gil. 203.) It is incumbent on the defendant alleging error to point it out, and upon a bill of exceptions, if evidence appears to have been received, and the purpose of its reception is not stated; if it is incompetent for one purpose, and competent for another, it will be presumed to have been introduced for the purpose for which it was admissible.
Upon the question whether the particulars of the offense, as stated by the prosecutrix in making complaint, and the name of the person charged by her at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Neel
...Iowa 420; Barnett v. The State, 83 Ala. 40, 3 So. 612; Pefferling v. The State, 40 Tex. 486; State v. Jones, Jr., 61 Mo. 232; State v. Shettleworth, 18 Minn. 184; People v. Mayes, 66 Cal. 597, 6 P. Bean v. The People, 124 Ill. 576, 16 N.E. 656. Tested by the foregoing principles the proceed......
-
State v. Reid
...148, 155; State v. Niles, 47 Vt. 82; Turner v. People, 33 Mich. 363, 383; People v. Brown, 53 Mich. 531, (19 N. W. Rep. 172;) State v. Shettleworth, 18 Minn. 191, (208, 213, 214;) State v. Peter, 8 Jones, (N. C.) 19; State v. DeWolf, 8 Conn. 93, (20 Am. Dec. 90;) Smith v. State, 80 Am. Dec.......
-
State v. Gandel
...... commit rape, it is the general rule that it may be shown by. the testimony of the woman injured, or that of other. witnesses, that the prosecutrix made complaint of the outrage. soon after its commission. 22 R.C.L. p. 1212; State v. Shettleworth, 18 Minn. 191 (208); State v. Rothi, 152 Minn. 73, 188 N.W. 50. As noted in the case. last cited, the rule does not apply where the injured female. is not produced as a witness. The evidence is usually. admitted only in corroboration of the testimony of the. complainant, but is admissible as ......
-
State v. Teipner
...an examination is made, a moment's reflection will show that there is no analogy between a case like this at bar and one like State v. Shettleworth, 18 Minn. 191, (208,) cited by defendant, where it is required that the complaints of a party seduced or violated must be recent, or that delay......