People v. BernorPeople v. Bernor
The respondent was charged under Act No. 70, Pub. Acts 1895, which provides:
“If any person shall ravish and carnally know any female of the age of sixteen yeаrs or more by force and against her will, or shall unlawfully and carnally know and abuse any female under the full age of sixteen years, he shall be punished by imрrisonment in the state prison; * * * and such carnal knowledge shall be deemed complete upon proof of penetration only.”
The claim of the prosecution was that on the 22d of October, 1896, the respondent had intercourse with Mary Day, a female under 16 .years of age, while the рarties were on their way from Wyandotte to South Rockford. -The defense interposed was: (1) That' the girl was not shown to be under 16 years of age; (2) that thеre was no sufficient proof of penetration. Some other questions are also raised, which will be considered.
1. Mary Day testified that" she was 14 years of age on September 18, 1896. Her mother testified that Mary was born on Sеptember 18, 1882. But counsel contends that the mother’s examination shows that shе was mentally weak, and could not remember dates; that she did not re
The claim that there was no proof of penetration cannot be maintained. It is true that the girl tеstified in the first instance that there was no penetration, but it is evident that she did nоt comprehend the question. She afterwards testified: “He took me up in his arms, and
laid me in the wagon-box, and there he done what was not right;” and she further tеstified to the penetration. A very learned discussion is entered into by cоunsel for respondent under a claim that there was no sufficient penеtration shown. In People v. Courier,
“ Perfect penetration is not now considered necessary in order to constitute the crime of rape, or carnal knowledge and_ abuse of a child under the age of 14 years. * * * The' English and American courts hold that nothing more than res in re is necessary, without reference to the еxtent of the penetration.”
But the complaining witness is sustained in her statement by the testimony of the officer who made the arrest. He testified that when thе respondent was brought before the justice, and the complaint read to him, he was asked by the justice, “ How do you plead to that ?” and answerеd, “I plead guilty.” The justi.ce asked him why he pleaded guilty, when respondent admittеd that he had had intercourse with the girl.
3. Complaint is made of the conduct of the assistant prosecuting attorney in the examination of the witness Mary Day. We find nothing in that examination calling
4. It is contended that the court was also in error in permitting the mother of the girl to state that her daughter, upon her arrival home, some days after the assault, told her what had occurred. This is all that the record shows as to statements made by the daughter. Thе case is governed by People v. Gage,
Some other questions are raised, which are not of importance to discuss. We find no error in the record. The judgment must be affirmed.