People v. Samonset

Criminal Law — Seduction under Promise of Marriage — Evidence — Chaste Character of Proseoutrix — Qualification of Witness. — On the trial of a defendant charged with the seduction of an unmarried fe nale of previous chaste character, under promise of marriage, the testimony of a witness for the prosecution that he had known the prosecutrix for one or twoyears, and hadroomed in thehouse where shewas employed, and had never known of any improper conduct on her part, is not objectionable upon the ground that it did not appear that the witness had had opportunities for observation sufficient to qualify him to testify.

Id. — Competency of Evidence. —Testimony of a witness for the prosecution that the prosecutrix had lived with her for two years, and during all that time was a woman of good character and good repute, is admissible as tending to prove that the prosecutrix was a woman of previous chaste character.

Id. — Good Faith in Making Promise. — The offense of the seduction of an unmarried female of previous chaste character, under promise of marriage, as defined by section 268 of the Penal Code, is complete, if, under and by means of the promise of marriage, the female is induced to surrender her chastity to the promisor, and he then refuses to fulfill his promise; and it is no defense to a prosecution therefor that when he made the promise he intended in good faith to carry it out.

Id. — Cross-examination — Impeachment of Defendant — Contradictory Affidavit — Reference to Inadmissible Affidavit. — The trial court properly permitted the prosecution to read in evidence, upon cross-examination of the defendant, an affidavit made and used by him upon a motion for a new trial in a civil action instituted against him by the prosecutrix, where it appeared that the affidavit tended to contradict the statements made upon his examination in chief, and properly refused to allow the defendant to read certain affidavits therein referred to, which were not admissible for any purpose.

Id. — Instructions — Matters of Fact — Previous Chaste Character.— An instruction asked for by the defendant, to the effect that if the jury should find that prior to the alleged seduction the proseoutrix committed lewd and immodest acts, and did not deport herself as a virtuous woman should, that, in that event, she was not, at the time of the alleged seduction, a female of previous chaste character, even if it should appear that she did not actually have illicit sexual intercourse, is an instruction upon matters of fact, and is properly refused by the court.

Id. — Request fob Instruction Already Given. — The refusal of the court to give an instruction to the jury, asked for in a criminal prosecution, is not error, where the matter contained therein is clearly and fully stated in another instruction already given.