Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

146 Pa. 343

Commonwealth v. Parker

Allegheny County Court of Oyer and Terminer · decided 1892-01-04

No. 42 October Term 1891, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 15 September Term 1890, O. and T. On October 14, 1890, the grand jury having returned as a true bill an indictment charging Charles Parker with the offence of rape committed upon the person of Emma Whitney, the defendant, waiving formal arraignment, pleaded not guilty. The cause being called for trial, the jury returned a verdict that they found the defendant not guilty of the felony charged, but guilty of fornication.

Relies on Commonwealth v. Lewis

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-01-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently April 2007

14 state decisions

30189219001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Pee Cubiam :

¶1The defendant was charged with rape. The jury acquitted him of the rape, but convicted him of fornication. We have held in a recent case, Commonwealth v. Lewis, 140 Pa. 561, that rape, and fornication and bastardy may be joined in an indictment, and that fornication is an incident of rape. The appellant contends that he cannot be convicted “ of an incident to a fact, and at the same time acquitted of the fact.” But the law is well settled that a man may be acquitted of an offence charged, and yet be convicted of a constituent offence involved within it. This principle does not need the citation of authority.

¶2Judgment affirmed.

/146/pa/343 · .json · Public domain