Strong v. State
Decision Date | 05 December 1900 |
Docket Number | 11,449 |
Citation | 84 N.W. 410,61 Neb. 35 |
Parties | LESTER M. STRONG v. STATE OF NEBRASKA |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
ERROR from the district court for Buffalo county. Tried below before SULLIVAN, J. Reversed.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Hamer & Hamer, R. A. Moore and H. M. Sinclair, for plaintiff in error.
Constantine J. Smyth, Attorney General, and Willis D. Oldham, Deputy contra.
The plaintiff in error, having been convicted of an assault with intent to commit a rape upon Caroline Hansen, was, by the district court of Buffalo county, sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a period of seven years. It appears from the record that on the evening of November 12, 1899 between eight and half past eight o'clock, the prosecutrix was violently assaulted by a young man who had, by falsehood and deceit, induced her to get into his buggy and ride with him to the outskirts of the city of Kearney. On the following morning the defendant was arrested and brought into the presence of Miss Hansen, but she then failed to recognize him as her assailant. It was on the trial virtually conceded that a crime had been committed, and the real question in controversy was whether the prisoner was the criminal. The prosecutrix testified that he was the man who assaulted her, and denied that she had on a previous occasion stated in the presence of Anna and Hattie Wilson that she was unable to identify him. The Wilsons being called as impeaching witnesses testified that Miss Hansen had made the imputed admission. At the conclusion of the trial the court was asked to charge the jury on behalf of the defendant that the testimony of the Wilsons should be considered, tested and its worth estimated under the rules and by the standards applicable to the testimony of other witnesses. This request was refused, but in its stead the court gave instruction number 8, which is as follows: The giving of this instruction was, in our judgment, prejudicial error. The statement which it is claimed the prosecutrix made to the Wilsons was in relation to a matter which was not only relevant to the issue, but of vital importance; and the defendant was entitled to have the evidence of these witnesses...
To continue reading
Request your trial