People v. Kuches

Citations

• 120 Cal. 566
• 52 P. 1002
• 1898 Cal. LEXIS 810

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law—Assault with Intent to Commit Rape—Sufficiency of Evidence—Province of Jury—Appellate Jurisdiction.—The court, has appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases on questions of law alone and the propriety of conviction upon the evidence before the court becomes a question of law within the competence of this court only when there is a clear failure of proof; and though the evidence contained in the record may not be very convincing to this court, that a defendant accused of an assault with intent to commit rape intended to accomplish intercourse with the prosecutrix against her consent, and despite any resistance she might make, yet where there-is evidence tending to prove the truth of the charge, the deductions of fact from the evidence are with’n the province of the jury, and where the court that heard the evidence has refused a new trial, its order will not be disturbed upon appeal for insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict.</p> <p>Id.—Question of Fact—Failure to Make Outcry.—The failure of the female to make outcry, though ordinarily tending strongly to discredit her charges, is not conclusive; and it is a question of fact whether the inference of consent to be drawn from her silence was repelled by other circumstances.</p> <p>Id.—Opportunity for Interruption and Discovery.—Though the fact that the assault was committed at a place and time when interruption and discovery must probably have followed any considerable resistance on the part of the female, is a strong circumstance tending to exonerate the defendant of the forcible intent charged, yet the deduction therefrom is one of fact to be determined by the jury, in view of all the evidence before it; and the appellate court cannot say that they were bound to allow it greater weight than they did. Id.—Indecency of Speech—Evidence.—Evidence that the prosecutrix commonly indulged in indecency of speech.is not admissible to illustrate the question whether she resisted defendant; it not app