State v. Robinson

Citations

• 83 Ohio St. (N.S.) 136

Syllabus

<p>Incest — Section 7019, Revised Statutes — Crime may be committed with or without consent of woman — Charge to jury — That consent is presumed, from act — Not prejudicial error — Instructions to jury that woman is accomplice — Unwise to convict, when— Testimony of prosecuting witness — May be found corroborated —By independent testimony, when.</p> <p>1. Under Section 7019, Revised Statutes, making it incest for persons nearer of kin by consanguinity or affinity than cousins, having knowledge of their relationship, to commit adultery or • fornication together, the crime may be committed with or without the consent of the woman, and it is not prejudicial error for the court to charge the jury that if they find beyond a reasonable doubt that an act of sexual intercourse took place that consent on the part of the female is presumed.</p> <p>2. In such case when the court has instructed the jury that the woman is an accomplice, if they find she consented to the act of sexual intercourse, and that it would be unsafe and unwise for the jury to convict the defendant upon her uncorroborated testimony, and that her testimony can be corroborated only by circumstances, or testimony from some other witness, and that a fact established beyond a reasonable doubt to be regarded as corroborative must be one which is an act of the defendant tending to show sexual intimacy probable between the defendant and the woman about the time involved, something that shows that he had undue intimacy at about that time, and circumstances in the testimony directly involving the defendant and tending to make a reasonable inference of sexual intimacy between them, it is not prejudicial error to state, in summing up, that the jury may find the testimony of the prosecuting witness corroborated if they find circumstances or testimony, independent of the testimony of the prosecuting witness, tending to suggest the probability that the defendant had sexual relations with her.</p>