32 Wash. 74 | Wash. | 1903
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The appellant was convicted of the crime of rape. The charging part of the information was as follows:
“Joseph Priest, the defendant above named, is hereby accused by George H. Clementson, as prosecuting attorney for Clallam county, in the state of Washington, by this information, of the crime of rape, committed as follows: The said Joseph Priest, the defendant above named, on or about the third day of July, A. D. 1901, in the county of Clallam, in the state aforesaid, then and there being, in and upon one Edith Triclcel, a female child under the age of eighteen years, to wit, of the age of fourteen years, feloniously did make an assault and her the said Edith Trickel, then and there feloniously did ravish, carnally know and abuse.”
A demurrer was interposed to the information and the overruling of the demurrer is the first error assigned;' the contention being that the information is bad on account of duplicity, that it charged more than one crime, that the appellant was not notified by the information as to the particular crime charged, and that he was unable to determine from the information whether he was charged with forcible or the common-law rape, or with rape under the statute. But any one of the crimes is a statutory-crime. The statute provides three definitions of this crime, and § 7062, Bal. Code, provides that “a person shall be deemed guilty of rape who (1) shall, by force and against her will, ravish and carnally know any female of the age of eighteen years or more; (2) shall, by deceit, deception, imposition or fraud induce a female to submit
After the state had made its opening argument to the jury, counsel for the .defendant stated, in reference to the waist of the complaining witness (which was an exhibit in the case, and had been introduced by the state for the purpose of showing that there had been a struggle, and that the alleged rape was with actual force and violence, there being tears and rips in the waist which were alleged to have been caused by force and violence during the alleged struggle), that the prosecuting witness had stated in her testimony that at the time of the struggle she had a jacket or coat on over the waist; and argued that if the underwaist was torn in the supposed struggle, it was not unreasonable to suppose that the jacket would also be torn, if the conflict was as described by the prosecuting witness, and asked why this jacket was not presented by the state. This statement of the counsel for the defense was disputed by one of the counsel for the state in the closing argument, who said that Mr. Trumbull was mistaken in regal'd to the prosecuting witness wearing a jacket or coat at the time of the alleged violence, and that there was not a particle of evidence to substantiate his (Trumbull’s) state
Fullerton, O. J., and Hadley, Anders and Mount, JJ., concur.