People v. Knight

California Supreme Court Dec 31, 1895 No. Crim. No. 42Published

Before: Haynes

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by unreasonably restricting the defendant's cross-examination of the prosecuting witness and by excluding competent circumstantial evidence intended to show the charge was fabricated.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in sustaining objections to cross-examination questions regarding the prosecuting witness's physical condition and potential prior sexual history.
Whether the trial court erred in excluding circumstantial evidence offered to prove the defendant's theory that the grandmother fabricated the rape charge.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The objection to the question should have been overruled.”

“We think all these questions were proper, and that the rulings of the court were erroneous, and unreasonably restricted the cross-examination of the witness.”

“The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed and a new trial granted.”

Synopsis

Rape—Testimony by Physician.—On a Prosecution for rape, a physician who testified for the prosecution that penetration would produce the condition of the parts discovered by his examination could be cross-examined as to whether all such conditions could not have been caused by other things, though he had stated that a certain instrument would cause certain of the conditions.

Rape—Cross-examination of Prosecutrix.—Where, on a prosecution for rape, prosecutrix testified that she was seven years of age when she came to the state, and that at the time of trial she was ten years of age, and on cross-examination stated that she did not know when she came to the state, she could be asked by defendant what she gave as her age to her school teacher after coming to the state.

Rape—Cross-examination of Prosecutrix.—Where, on a prosecution for rape of one who lived with defendant and his wife, prosecutrix testified that the reason she did not complain until several days after the offense was committed was because defendant had made her afraid of him by throwing things at her and scolding her, questions put to her by defendant to determine when this treatment commenced should have been allowed. In such case she could be cross-examined as to whether defendant ever said anything to her about having intercourse with her.

Rape—Cross-examination of Prosecutrix.—In such a ease, prosecutrix having testified that the wife went out and left her alone in the house with defendant, and that she was afraid of him, she could be asked on cross-examination why she did not go out with the wife.

Rape—Cross-examination of 'Prosecutrix.—On a trial for rape, under an indictment alleging several acts of intercourse with one Who lived with defendant and Ms wife, after prosecutrix testified that she was compelled by threats of the wife to tell her of the offenses, and that the wife suspected it from finding her trembling, she could be cross-examined as to whether the wife saw her trembling after the first offense or after the last, or how many times- she saw her thus.

Rape—Evidence.—On a Trial for Rape of One Who Lived with defendant and Ms wife, where a physician, who examined prosecutrix twelve days after the offense, testified that the hymen was entirely absorbed, and that, from indications, it might have disappeared long before, and prosecutrix testified that her only excuse for not making immediate complaint was her fear of defendant, prosecutrix could be cross-examined as to whether any person had intercourse with her before defendant, especially where defendant claimed that, the charge was concocted by his wife.1

Eape—Evidence of Concocted Charge.—Where, on a prosecution for rape, defendant claims that the charge was concocted by his wife, it is error to exclude circumstantial evidence to support that claim.

HAYNES, C. Appellant was convicted of the crime of rape and sentenced to imprisonment at Folsom for the term of nineteen years; and he now appeals from said judgment, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial. The offense is charged to have been committed upon Felis Aldama, a girl of ten years of age, the granddaughter of appellant’s wife. Appellant complains of numerous rulings of the court below upon questions of evidence, and of alleged errors in instructions given and refused, and also specifies as a ground of reversal that the evidence was not sufficient to justify the verdict.

Drs. Bogers and Taggart made a physical examination of the prosecuting witness some time after the last alleged outrage, but how long after is uncertain. The examination was made on September 7, 1894. Trinidad G-rijalba, the officer who arrested defendant, and who appears to have made the complaint, first heard of it, as he “guesses,” on September 2d, but how Jong before that date the last of the four alleged acts of intercourse occurred is not precisely fixed. The girl [233]testified upon the trial that she told her grandmother “about a week after the last time, ’ ’ but how long a time elapsed after she told her grandmother before it was communicated to Grijalba nowhere appears. Assuming that it was communicated to Grijalba at once, at least twelve days elapsed after the last of the four occurrences before the examination was made by the ' physicians. The physicians testified to certain conditions of the parts as they found them at the time of the examination, and both concluded that the producing cause must have occurred some time before the examination, but how long they could not tell. Dr. Rogers was asked by the district attorney whether penetration by a man would cause such bruises and inflammation as he found, and he answered, “Yes; on a child of that age.” He was afterward cross-examined by counsel for defendant, and that was followed by a redirect examination by the district attorney. Counsel for defendant, upon recross-examinati on, asked the following question: “All of the spots, and the disappearance of the hymen, and all the irritation you saw there, could have been made by various other things, could it not?” This question was objected to as being incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and not proper cross-examination. The Court: “I think that question has been answered once. Let the objection be sustained. Gentlemen, you cannot cross-fire on a witness this way.” It is true, some questions had been put to the witness partly covering the points of the above interrogatory. One went only to the red spots testified to by the doctor, and another to the use of a particular instrument —the finger; and, as to the latter, the doctor replied that it would not cause the injuries. The question here, however, covered all the injuries and appearances, and embraced every instrument or means of producing the injuries, aside from that which the prosecution sought to prove by the witness had caused it. The objection to the question should have been overruled.

People v. Knight

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief