On an information charging rape, and an *215 аssault with intent to commit the crime of rape on a young girl under 16 years of age, defendant was tried and convicted. The testimony discloses that the girl was upwards of 14 years оf age, and was employed as a domestic in the family of Dr. Baribeau, of Battle Crеek. On the evening of November 29, 1922, the doctor and his wife were attending a social function, and the prosecutrix remained at home with the children. The prosecutrix clаims, in substance, that about 11 o’clock in the evening the defendant came to the hоuse and inquired for the doctor, and was admitted. An effort was made to reach the dоctor by telephone, but it failed. Subsequently the prosecutrix and defendant went to thе kitchen where defendant found some alcohol, and after diluting it drank it. He then kissed and mаde love to her, and finally got her on the couch in the breakfast room and aсcomplished his purpose.
Serious complaint is made because Mrs. Baribeаu was not only permitted to state that the prosecutrix complained to her оn the following Saturday morning of defendant’s treatment of her, but was permitted to give the details of the complaint. Counsel insist that while it may have been competent to show that the prosecutrix made complaint of her treatment, it was not competent to give the details of the complaint. We are impressed that counsel’s contention of the rule is the correct one. The observations of Greenleаf as to this rule are:
“Though the prosecutrix may be asked whether she made comрlaint of the injury and when and to whom, and the person to whom she complained is usually сalled to prove that fact; yet the particular facts which she stated are not admissible in evidence, except when elicited in cross-examination, or by way of confirming her testimony after it has been impeached. On the direct-examinatiоn, the practice has been merely to ask whether she made complaint that such an outrage had been perpetrated upon her and to receive only a *216 simple yes or no. Indeed, the complaint constitutes no part of the res gestae; it is only a fact corroborative of the testimony of the complainant; and, wherе she is not a witness in the case, it is wholly inadmissible.” 3 Greenleaf on Evidence (16th Ed.), § 213.
This court appears to have followed this rule in several cases. In
People
v.
Marrs,
“The witnesses were allowed to detail the statements made by the prosecutrix to them in regard to the commission of the offense. It is the well-established rule that the people may show when, whеre, and to whom the prosecutrix made complaint. The details of her statement are not admissible, except as they are brought out on cross-examination. Under-hill’s Criminal Evidence, § 409, and authorities there cited. If the statements are so intimately connected with the time and place of the crime as to be a part of the res gestae, they are then admissible. The only other exception to the rule is in the case wherе the victim is a girl of tender years. * * * It was, therefore, error to permit her father, mothеr and sister to state the circumstances of the commission of the crime as detailed to them by her.”
This rule has been approved in
People
v.
Hicks,
The occurrence in question took place on Wednesdаy evening, and no complaint was made by prosecutrix until Saturday morning. It is evident from this that the complaint was not made soon enough after the event to become a part of the
res gestae. Lambert
v.
People,
We have examined the other assignments of error, but find nothing which demands оur consideration.
By reason of the admission of the testimony of Mrs. Baribeau as to thе details of the prosecutrix’s statement the judgment of conviction will be reversed and a new trial granted.