People v. Higuera

Citations

• 122 Cal. 466
• 55 P. 252
• 1898 Cal. LEXIS 612

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law—Seduction—Evidence—Chastity of Sisters of Prosecutrix—Cross-examination.—Upon the trial of a defendant charged with the seduction of an unmarried female of previous chaste character, under promise of marriage, the father of the prosecutrix, who has testified as a witness for the prosecution, and has been asked nothing upon his examination in chief as to the character of her sisters, cannot he asked upon cross-examination in reference thereto; and an offer to prove by him that both of her sisters had children born out of wedlock, et cetera, is properly rejected, as being inadmissible at that stage of the proceedings, and as being essentially a part of the defendant’s case.</p> <p>Id.—Sufficiency of Information—Language of Statute.—An information charging the offense of seduction of an unmarried female of previous chaste character under promise of marriage, is sufficient, if it follows the language of the statute, though it does not directly aver that the promise of marriage was made to the female seduced; though it seems it is better pleading to make such direct allegation.</p> <p>In.—Verdict and Judgment—Description of Offense.—Where the defendant was found guilty of the crime of seduction, as charged in the information, the judgment is not void because merely referring generally to the crime as that of “seduction,” but that word must be understood as referring to the seduction referred to in the verdict and charged in the information.</p>