State v. Storrs

<p>Criminal Law (221)—Trial—Right of Defendant to Interview Witness—Discretion of Court. The right of an accused person to consult with important witnesses for the state is a matter resting largely in the discretion of the trial court, and no abuse of discretion is shown from a denial thereof, where on a charge of seducing one G. it appeared that she was in love with the accused, had been acquitted of murdering accused’s wife on the ground of insanity, and was greatly under the influence of the accused.</p> <p>Same (451)—Appeal—Review—Harmless Error—Argument op Counsel. Error cannot be predicated upon improper remarks or arguments where the court sustains objections thereto at the time and plainly directs the jury to disregard them, unless they were of such a character that they could not be cured.</p> <p>Same (384)—Appeal—Review. The supreme court will not review alleged error in allowing an attorney to assist the prosecuting attorney, to which no objection was made or exception taken.</p> <p>Same (236-1)—Appeal—Trial—Opening Statement of Counsel. Prejudicial err,or is not shown by the prosecuting attorney’s overstatement of what the state would prove, where he had not had the usual opportunity to consult with the principal witness for the state, and his opening statement was not, generally speaking, unfair.</p> <p>Seduction (9)—Criminal Responsibility—Defenses—Offer to Marry—Good Faith. In a prosecution for seduction under Rem. Code, § 2441, providing for a stay of proceedings upon the accused’s good faith offer of marriage, it is competent for the state to show that the female seduced had been acquitted of murder on the ground of insanity and was mentally incompetent to accept a proposal of marriage.</p> <p>Criminal Law (451)—Appeal—Review—Harmless Error—Conduct of Counsel. Any prejudice from the prosecuting attorney’s question to accused’s counsel it he admitted certain matters, is cured where the court on objection immediately instructed the jury to disregard what had been said.</p> <p>Same (216)—Trial — Misconduct of Judge — Comment on Evidence. I.n a prosecution for seduction, where the court was called upon to rule as to the admissibility of evidence that the female seduced was willing to accept the accused’s offer of marriage, she being at the time adjudged criminally insane and mentally irresponsible, a remark by the court “that under the circumstances of this case” he had not the power, and if he had would not exercise his discretion, to receive the evidence, is not an unlawful comment on the evidence.</p> <p>Seduction (8, 12)—Promise of Maeriage—Instructions. In a prosecution for seduction by a married man, it is not error to refuse an instruction that there could be no reliance upon promises of marriage after knowledge that accused was a married man, where promise of marriage was not the basis of the charge and it was plain from the evidence that there never was any reliance on such a promise.</p> <p>Same (7, 12)—Acts Constituting Offense—Promises or Inducements^—Instructions. In a prosecution for seduction, it is proper to refuse an instruction that consent must have been secured by reason of some false promise or deceitful inducement, where the instruction was too narrow and another instruction with proper limitations required that there be some artifice, promise, inducement or wiles inducing the consent.</p> <p>Same (9)—Defenses—Previous Chaste Character—Instructions. In a prosecution for seduction of a woman of previous chaste character, prior acts of sexual intercourse with the accused cannot be shown to overcome the presumption of chastity.</p> <p>Same (12)—Previous Chaste Character—Presumptions—Burden of Proof—Instructions. In a prosecution for seduction, an instruction that the presumption of chastity must be overcome by proof of specific acts of prior sexual intercourse is proper, since unchastity cannot be shown by general reputation.</p> <p>Seduction (11)—Evidence—Sufficiency. A conviction of seduction is sufficiently sustained by evidence of attentions to a girl of eighteen which completely won her love before she learned that the accused was a married man and that she submitted her body to him only after they had become very intimate and had been constantly together, until she had become so madly in love with the accused as to make any sacrifice for him.</p> <p>Mount, Mackintosh, Main, and Mitcheul, JJ., dissent.</p>