Territory v. Fong Yee

Citations

• 25 Haw. 309
• 1920 Haw. LEXIS 64

Syllabus

<p>Seduction — evidence.</p> <p>In a case in which, the defendant is charged with the crime of seduction it is not error to permit the prosecutrix to testify that she became pregnant as the result of- the intercourse with the defendant and that she thereafter gave birth to a child, of which the defendant is the father.</p> <p>Same — same—leading questions.</p> <p>Leading questions are permissible to arrive at facts when ignorance or modesty prevents a full answer to a general interrogatory.</p> <p>Same — same—letters written by defendant.</p> <p>When the prosecutrix in a seduction case produces letters which she claims to have received by mail from the defendant and testifies that she is familiar with defendant’s handwriting and that said letters are in his handwriting, the letters are admissible in evidence without any further evidence to connect the defendant with the writing.</p> <p>Same — same—same—corroboration.</p> <p>Letters identified only by prosecutrix may be considered as corroborative of her testimony on the issues requiring corroboration, since her testimony need be corroborated only as to the sexual intercourse and the promise of marriage.</p> <p>Same — corroboration.</p> <p>Whether in a given case there was any corroboration of .the testimony of the prosecutrix is a question of law.</p> <p>Same — same—instruction to the jury.</p> <p>Under a statute which provides in effect that the court may charge the jury whether there is or is not evidence (indicating the evidence) tending to establish or rebut any specific fact involved in the case it is not error for the court to instruct the jury “that the court has ruled that there is some evidence in corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix in this case but the weight and sufficiency of that'testimony is for the jury to determine” without indicating to the jury what evidence the court considered corroborative of the prosecutrix’ testimony.</p>