State v. Shields

Where the defendant conspired with several others to commit a i;ape, and they together seized the woman and carried her into an alley, and the defendant, after sexual intercourse with her, fled, it was held that the acts and declarations of the others after he left were admissible against him. The court charged the jury in the case that there was no rule of law that there could be no rape unless the woman manifested the utmost reluctance and made the utmost resistance; but that the jury must be satisfied that there jvas no consent during any part of the act, and that the degree of resistance was an essential matter for them to consider in determining whether there was an honest and real want of consent. Held, upon motion of the defendant for a new trial, to be no error. The court also charged that if the woman was intoxicated at the time, or so far under the influence of liquor that her faculties for observation and understanding were impaired, then her evidence alone and unsupported would not be sufficient for a conviction, but that if her testimony was so far corroborated by other circumstances in the case as to carry conviction to their minds beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the extent that the evidence of one full credible witness would do, it would be sufficient. Held to be no error. And held that evidence that the woman had during the year preceding been several times intoxicated, was not admissible. The court also charged that a common prostitute was a competent and might be , a reliable witness; and that it was for the jury to judge, taking the habits of the woman and all the circumstances into consideration, whether she was a credible witness. Held to be no error. The court also charged the jury, with regard to the effect of evidence of good character, that if the jury were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused the question of character was of little consequence, but if upon all the evidence offered there existed a reasonable doubt it became one of great importance, because it tended not only to rebut the presumption of guilt growing out of the facts proved, but to strongly fortify the presumption of innocence which belongs to every person until proved guilty. Held that, while evidence of good character was to be considered by the jury in coming to any conclusion upon the case, yet the charge was not open to exception as conveying a different idea. It was to be understood as explaining merely the degree of weight to be given to the evidence of good character in its relation to the other evidence in the case. "While to constitute rape an actual penetration of the body of the woman is necessary, yet the least penetration is sufficient.

Indictment for rape; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County, and tried to the jury, on the plea of not guilty, before Sanford, 3. Upon the trial Ellen "Warner, the complainant, testified that about eleven o’clock "in the evening on which the offence was committed she went to" the York House on Bridge street, in New Haven, kept by John Crawford, for the purpose of seeing his wife and her mother, that she staid there about an hour in a room adjoining the bar room, that the defendant and several others were there, who left just before she did, that she then started to go home, and immediately upon going into the street "was seized by the defendant and several others, carried into an alley near by, and ravished by the defendant and by several of the others; that the defendant was the first to have connection with her, and that when he had done he ran away and she saw him no more. She" was then asked what occurred after the defendant left. To this question the defendant objected, but the court admitted it upon the claim by the state that the evidence was" to a part of one transaction, the ravishment having been planned by several of whom the defendant was one, and because circumstances occurred after the defendant left which tended to identify him as one of the guilty parties; and thereupon- she testified to the circumstances attending the ravishment by the other parties, and all that occurred, so far as she could recollect, until she was found in a nearly senseless condition and taken to the police station. • . The complainant testified that she was a married woman, having been married in October, 1874, since which time she had lived and was still living with her husband. It was proved by the defendant, and not denied by the state, that prior to the time of her marriage in 1874, the complainant had visited and lived at various houses of ill-fame, but there was no evidence showing that she had done so since her marriage. The defendant introduced a witness to show that the complainant was on one occasion during the past year at the •house of the witness intoxicated, and claimed to show by other witnesses other instances, during the past year'and previously, of her intoxication, all of which-was on objection by the State’s Attorney excluded by the court, the defendant excepting. The state offered as a witness Dr. Whittemore, who testified that he examined the' witness the morning after the assault upon her and found her genital organs bruised, bloody, .swollen, sensitive to the touch, and that she complained of a .scalding sensation in the passage of urine. He was then asked. — “ From yo.ur examination did you form an opinion as to how the injuries to her genital organs were produced.?” - To this question the defendant objected, but the court admitted it, and the witness replied that he was of opinion “ that they were produced by a forcible attempt at intercourse;” to which question and answer the defendant excepted. The same witness was also asked, against the objection of the defendant, “ Did you from your examination form an opinion as to whether there had been penetration ?” ■ And answered: “ My opinion was that penetration had taken place as far as the internal organs of generation, whether further or not I caniiot from my examination say;” to which .question and answer the defendant excepted. The state called as a witness one Flaherty, who testified that after the affair was over he went up to the next corner, about two hundred and fifty feet from the place where the offence was committed, and found the defendant and one Frawley sitting on some steps in front of a store; that he spoke to them and said, “ Those fellows ought to be arrested;” to which the defendant replied: “No, G-d d-n her, it serves her right; it will learn her better than to be caught in such a crowd again.” To this evidence the defendant objected, but the court admitted it. The defendant requested the court to charge the jury “that to constitute rape actual penetration of the body of the woman by the insertion into her of the private parts of the accused is absolutely necessary.” The court charged as requested, but added, “ but the least penetration is sufficient;” to which the defendant excepted. The defendant also requested the court to charge the jury “that there is no rape unless the woman manifested the utmost reluctance and made the utmost resistance.” The court in reference to this request charged as follows: “If by this is meant that you must be satisfied that the woman, according to your measure of her strength, used all the physical force in opposition of which she was capable, it is not the law, for there is no such rule of law. You must be satisfied that there was no consent during any part of the act, and the degree of resistance is an essential matter for you to consider in determining whether the alleged want of consent was honest and real;” to all which the defendant excepted. The defendant also requested the court to charge the jury “ that if this woman, the only person who says the accused was the guilty party, was intoxicated at the time, or was so far under the influence of liquor that her faculties for observation and understanding were impaired, then her evidence is not that of a full and competent witness, and a verdict of guilty should not be rendered on her testimony.” The court charged the jury as requested, but inserted before the words “is not” and after the word “evidence” the words “alone and unsupported,” added at the end of the request the word “alone,” and then proceeded as follows: — “ But if on the other hand, notwithstanding these conditions, her testimony is so far corroborated by. other circumstances in the case as to carry conviction to your minds beyond reasonable doubt, and to the extent that the evidence of one full, credible witness would do, and is so equivalent to it, that is sufficient.” To all which the defendant excepted. The' defendant requested the.court to charge the jury “that if they should find that the woman was a common prostitute, and of low, depraved and lewd habits, her evidence is not that of a full, competent and wholly reliable witness in a case like this.” The court charged the jury in reference to this request as follows: “I cannot say this as a matter of law. A prostitute is a competent witness. She may be a credible witness, she may not be a credible witness. A witness may be of low, depraved and lewd habits and still be competent and credible. She may be competent and yet incredible. It is for the jury to judge, taking her habits and all the circumstances into consideration, whether such a witness is a credible.or incredible witness.” To all which the defendant excepted. The court also charged the jury as follows: “ Evidence has been. offered to establish ■ for the accused a good character. If the jury are satisfied, beyond all reasonable doubt; of .the guilt of the party accused, the question of character is of little consequence; but if upon all the evidence there exists such reasonable doubt, the question of character becomes of great importance; because, if such good character be established, it tends not only to rebut the presumption of guilt growing-out of the circumstances proved against him, but also strongly to fortify that presumption of innocence which rightfully belongs to every one accused of crime until proved guilty.” To this charge the defendant excepted. The jury having returned a verdict of guilty, the defendant moved for a new trial for error in the rulings and charge of the court.