People v. Young

[34]

FINCH, P. J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of incest with his daughter. This .appeal is from the judgment of conviction and the order denying a new trial.

Appellant contends “that while there is a direct conflict in the evidence in this case, the testimony of the girl ... is so inherently improbable that it is not entitled to' belief.” The girl testified that the defendant committed the act charged and numerous similar acts. The defendant’s son testified that he witnessed the commission of the act. The sheriff of the county testified that the defendant, after his arrest, said: “I might as well tell you because I did it. . . . I am guilty and I might as well say so. . . . No use to hire an attorney because I can save the money for my wife.” There is other testimony of similar import. There is also testimony to the effect that at different times prior to the alleged act the girl made complaint of the defendant’s conduct toward her. The defendant did not testify at the trial. The foregoing evidence is clearly sufficient to support the verdict.

The court instructed the jury “that any evidence admitted in this case tending to show that any persons other than the defendant Adam P. Young had sexual intercourse with Marie Young does not excuse or mitigate his offense if you believe to a moral certainty and beyond a reasonable .doubt that he did have sexual intercourse with Marie Young on the date alleged in the information and that she is his daughter. The reputation and character of Marie Young for chastity and virtue are not material in this ease.

Evidence tending to show that she had permitted others to have sexual intercourse with her is to be considered only in disproof of the fact that the condition of her sexual organs was caused by her father. If you believe from all of the evidence in the case to a moral certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt that he did have sexual intercourse with her, you should find the defendant guilty although other persons contributed to the condition of her sexual

organs.”

Appellant complains of the italicized parts of the instruction, but it is .difficult to understand the nature of his objection thereto. He says: “The evidence shows beyond dispute that she (the prosecutrix) was the daughter