State v. Workman

Citations

• 66 Wash. 292
• 119 P. 751
• 1911 Wash. LEXIS 1058

Syllabus

<p>Rape — “Intercourse”—Evidence—Sufficiency. Á conviction of statutory rape is sustained by the testimony of the prosecutrix that the defendant had “intercourse” with her, where it appears that she meant sexual intercourse and fully comprehended her statements.</p> <p>Rape — Evidence—Corroboration—Sufficiency. In a prosecution for statutory rape, evidence that the defendant had admitted a similar act with the prosecutrix is sufficient corroboration of her testimony, and any doubt as to the meaning of the language used in the admissions raises a question for the jury.</p> <p>Rape — Previous Chaste Character — Reputation—Evidence—Admissibility. In a prosecution for statutory rape under Rem. & Bal. Code, § 2436, relating to carnal knowledge of a female of previous chaste character between fifteen and eighteen years of age, evidence is admissible on the part of the defense of the previous general reputation of the prosecutrix as to unchastity, as going to her credibility as a witness, but is not admissible to prove her unchaste condition (Chadwick, X, dissenting).</p> <p>Criminal Law — Trial—Several Offenses — Election—Necessity. In a prosecution for statutory rape upon a female of previous chaste character between fifteen and eighteen years of age, where the evidence tends to show three distinct offenses occurring at different times and places, it is reversible error for the court to deny defendant’s motion, after the testimony is in, to compel the prosecution to make an election as to the offense relied upon for conviction.</p>