Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

doctrine, and by the principles of our own law, though the question seems not to have been directly adjudicated, a good defense, on the ground of mistake of fact.?

$ 730. Attempts — (Solicitations).— There may be an indictable attempt to commit incest, though the act must proceed far enough. On principle, a solicitation not responded to may

. constitute an attempt, - a proposition denied in one case. But this case, and the question generally, are sufficiently explained in “Criminal Law.”5

II. THE PROCEDURE.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

$ 731. Previous expositions.-Incest being either an unlawful marriage, therefore within the principles explained in the chapter on polygamy, or a particular form of fornication or adultery, consequently within the expositions of the last four chapters, the reader has only to turn to those chapters to find answered most of his inquiries under the present head.

$ 732. Following statute.- The leading rule for all indictments on statutes, to cover in allegation their terms, is the principal one in this offense. Thus,

Averring relationship.-Under the statutory words, “if any father shall have sexual intercourse with his daughter knowing her to be such,” it is not sufficient to allege that the defendant, A., “unlawfully did have sexual intercourse with his daughter B., the said B. then and there knowing that she, the said B., was his, the said A.'s, daughter.” A.'s knowledge is not covered by “unlawfully,” nor does it otherwise appear. But where the expression in the statute was, “within the degrees of consanguinity within which marriages are prohibited or de

11 Alison, Crim. Law, 563; 1 Hume, offense we saw under the title AdulCrim. Law (2d ed.), 448.

tery. Ante, § 661; Noble v. S., 22 2 Crim. Law, I, SS 301-310; ante, Ohio St. 541. SS 596a, 663.

6 8. v. Bullinger, 54 Mo. 142; BauSP. v. Murray, 14 Cal. 159; Mc- mer v. S., 49 Ind. 544, [19 Am. R. 691;) Coll's Case, 1 Scotch Sess. Cas. (4th Gay v. S., 2 Tex. Ap. 127; [S. v. Brown, ser.), Just. 22, 2 Couper, 538; [P. v. 47 Ohio St. 102, 23 N. E. R. 747; S. v. Gleason, 99 Cal. 359, 33 Pac. R. 1111.) McGilvery, 20 Wash. 240, 55 Pac. R. 4 Cox v. P., 82 Ill. 191.

115; 8. v. Guiton, 51 La. An. 155, 24 5 Crim. Law, I. Introduction to 7th S. R. 784; Porath v. S., 90 Wis. 527, ed., the long note, SS 764, 7680, 772a. 63 N. W. R. 1061.]

The carnal act.- What is the car. 7 Williams v. S., 2 Ind. 439. nal act necessary to the substantive

clared by law to be incestuous and void,” it was adjudged adequate to aver that the defendant "did commit the crime of fornication” with one B., his daughter. Under the Illinois statute the allegation that the defendant A. did the criminal act on the person of B., the said B. then and there being the daughter of him, the said A., was held to be adequate as to the relationship

$ 733. “ Knowingly.”— We have already seen that the word “knowingly,” if in the statute, must be in the indictment, otherwise it need not be. Now,

Both knowing-Joint or several.— If, as some deem, or as under some statutes, the guilt of both parties is essential to that of either one,' the knowledge of both, where the statute requires both to have it, must be alleged. But where the offense may be proceeded against as several, and one may be guilty without the other, the knowledge of the defendant alone need be averred.?

§ 734. Continuando or not.- Where, by the terms of the statute or its interpretation, one carnal act constitutes the offense, it cannot be charged as continued through a specified number of years; for so the count would be double. But doubtless there are statutes under which this form of averring the time will be good.

$ 735. Proof of relationship.-It has been held, doubtless correctly, that on an indictment for incest the relationship and pedigree of the parties may be proved by reputation or by the defendant's confessions. 10

6

9

2

1 Hicks v. P., 10 Mich. 395; [P. v. * Ante, $ 660; S. v. Thomas, 53 Iowa, Kaiser, 119 Cal. 456, 51 Pac. R. 702; 214; De Groat v. P., 39 Mich. 124. S., De Puy v. Evans, 88 Wis. 255, 60 N. 6 Baumer v. S., 49 Ind. 544, (19 Am. W. R. 433.]

R. 691.) Bergen v. P., 17 Ill. 426, [65 Am. 6 Powers v. S., 44 Ga. 209, D. 672;] S. P., Hicks v. P., 10 Mich. 7 Baker v. S., 30 Ala. 521; Morgan 395. See also Howard v. S., 11 Ohio v. S., 11 Ala. 289, 290. St. 328; Noble v. S., 22 Ohio St. 541; 8 Barnhouse v. S., 31 Ohio St. 39. Hutchins v. Com., 2 Va. Cas. 331, 332; And see S. v. Temple, 38 Vt. 37; S. v. Attorney-General v. Broaddus, 6 Glaze, 9 Ala. 283. Munf. 116; (Waggoner v. S., 35 Tex. 9 Ewell v. S., 6 Yerg. 364, [27 Am. D. Cr. R. 199, 32 S. W. R. 896.)

480;] S. v. Bullinger, 54 Mo, 142, 144. 3 Ante, SS 729, 732. It is so also in See 1 Bishop, Mar., Div. & S., SS 546simple adultery. Com. v. Elwell, 2 548. Met. 190, [35 Am. D. 398.)

10 P. v. Jenness, 5 Mich. 305; Morgan

$ 736. Other questions. Some other questions of evidence have been decided in these cases; but relating simply to the sufficiency of the proofs, or not involving principles special to this offense.

v. S., 11 Ala. 289; Bergen v. P., 17 Ill. W. R. 83; Yeoman v. S., 21 Neb. 171, 426, [65 Am. D. 672;} P. v. Harriden, 31 N. W. R. 669; S. v. Jarvis, 20 Oreg. 1 Park. Cr. 344; S. v. Schaunhurst, 34 437, 26 Pac. R. 302; Mercer v. S., 17 Iowa, 547.

Tex. Ap. 452; Bates 0. S. (Tex. Cr. I Lovell v. S., 12 Ind. 18; P. v. Jen R.), 44 S. W. R. 517; Bennett v. S., ness, 5 Mich. 305; Tuberville v. S., 4 32 Tex. Cr. R. 216, 22 S. W. R. 47; Tex. 128; Gay v. 8., 2 Tex. Ap. 127; Schoenfelt v. S., 30 Tex. Ap. 695, 18 Freeman v. S., 11 Tex. Ap. 92, (40 Am. S. W. R. 640; Blanchette v. S., 29 Tex. R. 787;] Kidwell v. S., 63 Ind. 384; S. Ap. 46, 14 S. W. R. 392; Owens v. S., v. Ellis, 74 Mo. 385; [Smith v. 8., 108 35 Tex. Cr. R. 345, 35 S. W. R. 875; Ala. 1, 19 S. R. 306; P. v. Kaiser, 119 Mullinix v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. R. 116, 26 Cal. 456, 51 Pac. R. 702; 8. v. Kouhns, S. W. R. 504; Poyner v. S. (Tex. Cr. 103 Iowa, 720, 73 N. W. R. 353; S. v. R.), 51 S. W. R. 376; Kilpatrick v. Hurd, 101 Iowa, 391, 70 N. W. R. 613; S., 39 Tex. Cr. R. 10, 44 S. W. R. 830; Com. v. Bakeman, 131 Mass. 577; Porath v. S., 90 Wis. 527, 63 N. W. R. Whitaker v. Com., 95 Ky. 632, 27 S. 1061.]

509

.

CHAPTER XLIV.

OTHER OFFENSES AGAINST MARRIAGE

$ 737, In “Marriage and Divorce." - In the author's work on “Marriage and Divorce,” there is a chapter on the “Impediments of Race and Civil Condition,"land another on the "Penal Consequences of Irregular Marriage Solemnization."

93 It is not proposed to repeat here what is said there. Still,

$ 738. Miscegenation. As there stated, some of our states have statutes against the mixing of races by intermarriage, particularly of blacks and whites; and these statutes, even since the abolition of slavery and the accompanying amendments of the national constitution, and the enforcing acts of congress, are within the legislative power of the states. Nor, in general, did such abolition and those amendments and acts interrupt the operation of the prior statutes of this sort. For something of the interpretation of the statutes and the procedure under them, the reader is referred to the cases in the note.

§ 739. The rest of the subject — is sufficiently discussed in the other work. But the reader may like to see, in a note, a reference to some of the cases.

11 Bishop, Mar., Div. & S., SS 308- 7 S. R. 261; McAlpine v. S., 117 Ala. 311.

93, 23 S. R. 130.] 2 1 id., SS 341-347a.

6 S. v. Bray, 13 Ire. 289; S. v. Loftin, 31 id., $S 308, 308a; Ex parte Kin. 2 Dev. & Bat. 31; 8. v. McWhinney, ney, 3 Hughes, C. C. 9; Ex parte 5 Blackf. 364; Smyth v. S., 8 Eng. 696; Francois, 3 Woods, 367; Lonas v. S., Bailey v. Fiske, 34 Me. 77; Reg. v. 3 Heisk. 287.

James, Temp. & M. 300, 14 Jur. 940, 4 Frasher v. S., 3 Tex. Ap. 263, [30 19 Law J. (N. S.) M. C. 179, 1 Eng. L. & Am. R. 131;] Francois v. S., 9 Tex. Ap. Eq. 552. 2 Den. C. C. 1; Wyckoff v. 144; S. v. Gibson, 36 Ind. 389, [10 Am. Boggs, 2 Halst. 138; S. v. Griffith, 67 R. 42.]

Mo. 287; S. v. Wilder, 7 Blackf. 582; 5 Moore v. S., 7 Tex. Ap. 608; Hoover S. v. Horsey, 14 Ind. 185; S. v. Pierce, v. S., 59 Ala. 57; Green v. S., 59 Ala. 14 Ind. 302; Com. v. Waterman, 122 68; S. v. Bell, 7 Bax. 9, (32 Am. R. Mass. 43; Com. v. Hill, 6 Leigh, 636; 549;] Frasher v. S., supra; Burns v. S. v. Ross, 26 Mo. 260; Sikes v. S., 30 S., 48 Ala. 195, [17 Am. R. 34,] over- Ark. 496; S. v. Winright, 12 Mo. 410; ruled in Green v. S., 58 Ala. 190, [29 Reg. v. Asplin, 12 Cox, C. C. 391, 5 Am. R. 739; Linton v. S., 88 Ala. 216, Eng. R. 470; Bonker v. P., 37 Mich. 4.

CHAPTER XLV.

ABORTION.

$ 740, 741. Introduction.

742–750. Law of the offense.
751-762. The procedure.

$ 740. Why treated as statutory.—Though, as we shall see,' abortion is recognized in some degree as an offense at the common law, practically the prosecutions for it are nearly all upon statutes. Hence it is placed in the statutory division of this series of works.

$ 741. How chapter divided.- We shall consider, I. The law of the offense; II. The procedure.

2

I. THE LAW OF THE OFFENSE. $ 742. Resulting in death.- An abortion which results in the death of the woman,' - or, where the pregnancy has so far advanced that the child passes from her alive, in its death from injuries inflicted in the operation, or from premature exposure to the external world,' - is common-law murder. But,

$ 743. Same under statutes.- In some of our states statutes have either made it manslaughter,' or an aggravated abortion punishable less severely than murder. But not all the statutes on the subject thus reduce the offense.

$ 744. Abortion at common law.- The causing of an abortion is an indictable misdemeanor at the common law. There

1 Post, 8 744.

46 Ind. 363; S. v. Glass, 5 Oreg. 73; 2 Crim. Law, II, § 691; Reg. v. Fret- [S. v. Emerich, 87 Mo. 110.) well, Leigh & C. 161, 9 Cox, C. C. 153; 3 Gen. Stats., ch. 165, § 9; Com. v. Com. v. Hersey, 2 Allen, 173; S. v. Brown, 14 Gray, 419; Com. v. JackMoore, 25 lowa, 128, [95 Am. D. 776;] son, 15 Gray, 187; Com. v. Adams, 127 8. v. Dickinson, 41 Wis. 299.

Mass. 15. Under the earlier Massa3 Crim. Law, I, § 328; II, § 691; chusetts statutes, Com. v. Wood, 11 Reg. v. West, 2 Car. & K. 784, 2 Cox, Gray, 85, 92. In other states, S. v. C. C. 500; Storer & Heard, Abortion, Harper, 35 Ohio St. 78, (35 Am. R. 153; [S. v. Slage, 82 N. C. 653.) 596;] P. v. Davis, 56 N. Y. 95.

*S. v. Dickinson, 41 Wis. 299; P. v. Beasley v. P., 89 Ill. 571. Olmstead, 30 Mich. 431; Willey v. S., 73 Inst. 50; 1 Hale, P. C. 433; Hawk

6

« AnteriorContinuar »