Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

133 Mich. 516

People v. Randall

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 23, 1903

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1903-06-23

<p>Rape — Evidence—Sufficiency.</p> <p>In a prosecution for rape, where the testimony of the prosecutrix was contradicted by that of respondent, but the latter’s conduct, immediately after the arrest of his brother on a similar charge, was indicative of a fear of prosecution, and tended to corroborate the charge, the case was peculiarly one for the jury, and a conviction was not disturbed.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently January 1948

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1903-06-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Hooker, C. J.

¶1The defendant was convicted of statutory rape upon a child under the age of 16 years. Error is *517¡alleged upon the ground that the evidence is insufficient to ¡sustain a conviction: (1) Because she was prompted to make the complaint by the prosecuting attorney; (2) because her testimony is contradicted by the defendant, thus making the evidence balance.

¶2It is unnecessary to discuss the testimony at length. The conduct of the defendant, immediately after the arrest ■of his brother upon a similar charge, is indicative of a fear ■of prosecution, and tends to corroborate the charge. The case was peculiarly one fora jury. Evidently they believed the child and disbelieved her uncle. Her surroundings, and the habits of life, and want of care over her, of her mother, subjected her to unusual dangers. The responsibility for this conviction rests upon the jury, where it properly belongs, and we cannot say that the verdict was not just. It evidently met the approval of the learned circuit judge who heard the cause, and who would doubtless refuse to permit a grossly improper verdict to stand.

¶3The judgment is affirmed.

'The other Justices concurred.
/133/mich/516 · .json · Public domain