(Download) "State v. Stevens" by Supreme Court of Montana " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: State v. Stevens
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 26, 1937
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 60 KB
Description
Criminal Law ? Attempt to Commit Rape ? Sufficiency of Information ? Criminal Intent ? Evidence ? Sufficiency ? Intoxication as Defense ? Instructions. Attempt to Commit Rape ? Information ? Sufficiency. 1. Information charging that defendant wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attempted to have sexual intercourse with prosecutrix, and forcibly and violently, without her consent and contrary to her wishes and expressed protest, demanded that she submit to sexual intercourse and by force attempted to overcome her and accomplish the act of intercourse, held sufficient under the statutes (secs. 11843, subd. 2, 11845, Rev. Codes), as against the objections that no overt act was charged and that intent was insufficiently alleged. Same ? Indefinite and Uncertain Information ? Bill of Particulars Available to Defendant. 2. Where defendant charged with crime (attempt to commit rape) deems the information too indefinite and uncertain he has the privilege of applying for a bill of particulars, and where it is apparent that by reason of the too general character of the charge defendant may have difficulty in preparing his defense, the trial court should incline toward granting the motion for such a bill. Same ? Criminal Intent ? Sufficiency of Evidence. 3. In a prosecution for attempted rape, evidence, showing a prolonged struggle and vicious attack in which prosecutrix was badly beaten in her efforts to thwart defendant, held sufficient to show his criminal intent. Same ? Intoxication as Defense ? Sufficiency of Evidence to Warrant Finding of Jury That Defendant Responsible. 4. Where the evidence in a prosecution for attempted rape showed that defendant was able to drive prosecutrix in his car to a place near a city suitable for his purpose, engage in a prolonged struggle in an effort to carry out that purpose, and realizing that she was in such a condition that it would be unwise to take her home, offered to take her to a place to have her cleaned up, which was refused, and thereafter to go to his hotel and to his room and go to bed, the jury was warranted in finding that his defense of intoxication was not borne out by the facts, but that he knew what he was trying to do and was responsible. Same ? Defense of Intoxication ? Giving of Instruction in Language of Section 10728, Subd. 1, Revised Codes, Held not Error. 5. Where the sole defense of one charged with an attempt to commit rape was intoxication, the trial court held not to have committed error in giving an instruction in the words of subdivision 1, section 10728, Revised Codes, declaring, in effect, that an act is no less criminal because committed by an intoxicated person, and that the jury may - Page 190 take into consideration the fact that the accused was intoxicated in determining the purpose, motive or intent with which he committed the act, although, as a general rule, courts do not approve the giving of abstract propositions of law as instructions to juries. Same ? Refusal of Instruction as to Specific Intent to Rape not Error Where Subject Covered by Instructions Given. 6. Refusal of an offered instruction that a specific intent to rape is an absolutely essential ingredient of an attempt to rape and must accompany the means to effect the crime, held not error, in view of other instructions given sufficiently covering the point.
 "State v. Stevens" by Supreme Court of Montana " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}