State v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 01 May 1918 |
| Parties | STATE v. WILSON. [*] |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Perkins County; Raymond L. Dillman Judge.
William Wilson was convicted of statutory rape, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Pat Morrison, of Mobridge, and Julius Skaug, of Ipswich, for appellant.
C. C Caldwell, Atty. Gen., and C. G. Carrell and P. J. Tscharner both of Lemmon, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of the crime of statutory rape, and brings the cause before this court on appeal. The sufficiency of the evidence is not questioned. The only questions presented relate to certain rulings and instructions of the trial court.
By demurrer and motion in arrest of judgment appellant questions the sufficiency of the information. The offense is alleged to have been committed "on between the 1st day of March 1915, and the 1st day of July, 1915." Appellant contends that this designation of time is so uncertain and indefinite that he could not adequately prepare his defense in advance of the trial. We are of the opinion that the demurrer and motion were properly overruled. State v. Otto, 38 S.D. 353, 161 N.W. 340; State v. Sysinger, 25 S.D. 110, 124 N.W. 879, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 997; Coce Crim. Pr. § 225.
The prosecuting witness testified that appellant was the father of the child she then had present with her on the trial. On cross-examination she was asked if at a certain date, subsequent to the date of the intercourse on which the state relied for conviction, she had not had sexual intercourse with another person, other than appellant, and that the child was the result of such other intercourse. The court sustained an objection to such question, and which ruling is now urged as error. We are of the opinion that the objection was properly sustained. Appellant made no offer to prove the fact of such other intercourse by any other witness. We are of the view that in this character of case whether or not she had intercourse with some other person, either before or after the intercourse on which the state relies for conviction, was an immaterial issue. State v. Plunkett, 72 Ark. 409, 82 S.W. 845; State v. Stimpson, 78 Vt. 124, 62 A. 14, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1153, 6 Ann. Cas. 639.
The appellant requested certain instructions and now urges error in the refusal thereof. We are of the opinion that the court by the instructions given, fully covered all the propositions included in such requested instructions. No exceptions...
To continue reading
Request your trial