United States v. Griego

Citations

• 11 N.M. 392
• 72 P. 20

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS.</p> <p>1. Where in an indictment for adultery, under the laws of the United States, the indictment charges that the defendant, “did unlawfully commit the crime of adultery hy then and there having unlawful intercourse” and further charges that the defendant was a married man, the indictment is sufficient, notwithstanding the omission of the words sexual or carnal.</p> <p>2. It was not error for the court to admit the testimony of Cruz Martinez, as the same was competent and material, within the issues.</p> <p>3. There being a substantial conflict in the evidence, it was not error for the court to refuse to instruct the jury to find for the defendant, as requested hy defendant’s counsel at. the close of the testimony, nor to refuse such instruction at close of testimony for the prosecution, such testimony being competent and tending to sustain the charge.</p> <p>4. Where, in such case, the court charged the jury upon the evidence both from the standpoint of the prosecution and the defendant, as follows: “There is, however, no presumption of guiit unless such circumstances are shown by the government as would justify a reasonable person to he satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants had sexual intercourse with each other within three years previous to March 1, 1901. If you believe from the evidence before you, that the whole family, or some portion thereof, regularly and at all' times occupied the family sleeping room in common with the defendants for three years prior to March 1, 1901, then there is no presumption of guilt. If on Lhe other hand, you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants within three years previous to March 1, 1901, occupied the sleeping apartment alone, as a sleeping room, that circumstance alone raises a presumption of guilt;” while it would he error in a criminal prosecution, where the jury cannot under any circumstances infer guilt, in a prosecution for adultery, where direct proof is rare