State v. Griffin
Citations
- 43 Wash. 591
- 86 P. 951
- 1906 Wash. LEXIS 753
Syllabus
<p>Rape — Evidence—Complaints Made. In a prosecution for rape it is error to permit the witnesses to whom the prosecutrix had made complaint to state the name of the person whom she claimed to have committed the offense.</p> <p>Same — Complaints—Delay in Making. While ordinarily complaints made by the prosecutrix for an alleged rape are to be submitted to the jury under proper instructions, they should be excluded where no complaint was made for a year and a half after the defendant first took liberties with her person, and eight months after his first felonious assault, and six months after the consummated offense, where her age and surroundings furnished no sufficient excuse for the delay; since in such case the evidence of complaints ceases to be corroborating.</p> <p>Same — Instructions. In such a case, it is error to submit to the jury the question whether the complaints were seasonably made.</p> <p>Same — Trial—Instructions. In a prosecution for rape upon one under the age of consent, claimed to have been made by force and notwithstanding resistance and outcry, it is error to refuse to instruct that the jury should take into consideration whether there was injury to the person or clothing, whether complaint was seasonably made, whether persons in the house could have heard outcry, if any were made, and whether the prosecutrix did make outcry in resisting assault.</p> <p>Same — Issues and Proof — Question eoe Juey. In a prosecution for rape it was error to withdraw from the jury the theory of the defense that the prosecution was instigated to shield another party, where there was evidence that she was surprised in a compromising position with another man shortly before the charge was preferred against the defendant.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Evidence—Fabrication oe Evidence. An attempt to obtain a flash-light photograph of the defendant in a compromising position with a female under the age of consent, whom it was alleged he had assaulted and raped, would not be a
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “In the nature of things there must be some limit of time beyond which such complaints cease to corroborate”
- complaint made six months after assault was not sufficiently timely to be admissible under the hue and cry doctrine
- trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding statements admissible under fact-of-complaint doctrine where child was living with abuser and abuse was still ongoing, even though reports were made outside charging period
- complaint six months after assault was not sufficiently timely
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Rudkin
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
16 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. GoebelWashington Supreme Court· 1952-01-24· cited 128×
- State v. FergusonWashington Supreme Court· 1983-07-28· cited 101×
- State v. GayWashington Supreme Court· 1914-12-07· cited 50×
- People v. MarxIllinois Supreme Court· 1919-12-17· cited 50×
- State v. HolmWyoming Supreme Court· 1950-11-21· cited 38×
- State v. LintonWashington Supreme Court· 1950-04-03· cited 26×
- Commonwealth v. GardnerMassachusetts Appeals Court· 1991-05-02· cited 25×
- Smith v. United StatesNinth Circuit· 1931-02-02· cited 17×
- State v. StewartWashington Supreme Court· 1909-03-03· cited 14×
- Curtis v. StateTennessee Supreme Court· 1934-03-31· cited 12×
- State v. ColumbusWashington Supreme Court· 1913-07-10· cited 12×
- State v. FiddlerWashington Supreme Court· 1961-03-09· cited 11×
- State v. MartinezWashington Supreme Court· 2020-11-19· cited 11×
- State v. AldrickWashington Supreme Court· 1917-08-13· cited 11×
- State v. CasperNew York Court of General Session of the Peace· 1926-11-16· cited 6×
- State v. MoneymakerWashington Supreme Court· 1918-03-02· cited 5×
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Commonwealth v. ClearyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1898-10-29· cited 46×
- State v. HunterWashington Supreme Court· 1898-02-23· cited 36×
- People v. LambertCalifornia Supreme Court· 1898-02-24· cited 32×
- Thompson v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 1871-11-15· cited 28×
- State v. ConnellySupreme Court of Minnesota· 1894-06-15· cited 27×
- Stevens v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1895-10-11· cited 25×
- Conners v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court· 1879-08-15· cited 22×
- Anderson v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1903-10-15· cited 22×
- State v. DaughertySupreme Court of Kansas· 1901-07-06· cited 16×
- Reynolds v. StateNebraska Supreme Court· 1889-06-27· cited 15×
- Kendall v. PorterCalifornia Supreme Court· 1898-02-14· cited 7×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.