The defendant was convicted of assault, with intent to commit the crime of rape upon a girl of less than 14 years of age.
The proof consisted of testimony from the girl, who unequivocally testified to the completed act of sexual intercourse,,' testimony from a physician, showing an examinаtion and rupture of the membrane, testimony of one or two witnesses to аdmissions on the part of defendant to the effect, that he had intercourse with the girl on the occasion
The errors relied on are as follows:
1. That the court charged the jury that the defendant might be convicted of rape, of assault with intent to commit rape, or of simple assault.
2. That, defendant having denied the transactiоn, the jury should have been charged that there must be some testimony corrоborating that of the girl, or the verdict must be not guilty.
3. That the jury should have been chаrged that if the girl had reached the age of puberty, although under 14 years оf age, she was no longer a “child,” within the ¿leaning of the statute.
4. That the jury should hаve been directed to return a verdict for the defendant because the girl had reached the age of puberty.
It is true that upon this record thе proof upon one side shows the completed act of sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 14 years, while upon the other a dеnial of any offense is made. Under such proof it cannot be denied that a verdict of assault with intent to rape is illogical. But an assault with intent to сommit rape is necessarily included in every rape. The defendant’s сounsel are alleging, not an injurious error, but one which, if it could be callеd an error, has resulted to defendant’s advantage. In the case of Hall v. People,
The charge of the court is not given, and wе have no means of determining what, if anything, was said to the .jury upon the subject of corroboration, and, while the request of defendant’s counsel was rеfused, we cannot assume that the subject was not properly treatеd in the •charge. We do not intend to imply that the court should have given the rеquest in substance, for we are not prepared to say that conviсtion in rape cases cannot be based upon the uncorrobоrated testimony of the woman assaulted. We see no reason for hоlding that the rule of the common law is changed by permitting the defendant to tеstify, .and believe that the question of credibility can be safely left to the jury. As'а matter of fact there were corroborating circumstances in the case.
The remaining question is without merit. The statute (3 How. Stat. § 9094} provides that,—
“If аny person shall * * *- unlawfully and carnally know and abuse any female child under thе age of fourteen years, he shall be punished,” etc.
It is contended that the victim must not only be under the age of 14 years, but must be a child, i. e. must not have reаched the age of puberty. We cannot assent to such a doctrine. The legislators who voted for this law must have known that puberty in females is cоmmon before the age of 14. There is nothing to indicate that the age of puberty was intended to have any bearing upon the subject.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment will be affirmed.