Rice v. State

Citations

• 35 Fla. 236

Syllabus

<p>1. On the trial of the defendant for rape the prosecutrix was asked the question: “Did you ever have intercourse with the defendant or any other man previous to last Monday morning?” (the time of the alleged offense). The avowed object of the question was to impeach the reputation of the prosecutrix for chastity, and to show a probability of consent to the act: Held inadmisible for the purposes stated. The question should have been limited to such acts of intercourse with the defendant.</p> <p>2. Upon a trial for rape the character of the prosecutrix for chastity, or the want of it, is competent evidence as bearing upon the .probability of her consent to the defendant’s act, but the impeachment of her character in this respect must be confined to evidence of her general reputation, except that she may be interrogated as to her previous intercourse with the defendant, or as to promiscuous intercourse with - men, or common prosti' tution.</p> <p>3. If at the time a man has carnal knowledge of a female, her mind is overpowered by fear induced by the man, wherefore she makes no resistance, it is rape. Though a man lays no hands on a woman, yet if by an array of physical force he so overpowers her that she dare not resist, his carnal intercourse with her is rape.</p> <p>4. The facts and circumstances of this case being insuffipient to show-the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable'doubt, the judgment should be reversed and a new trial awarded.</p>