Johnson v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Johnson v. Commonwealth

13 Ky. Op. 534, 7 Ky. L. Rptr. 47, 1885 Ky. LEXIS 245

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky

DecidedJune 13, 1885

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 Ky. Op. 534 (Johnson v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. Commonwealth, 13 Ky. Op. 534, 7 Ky. L. Rptr. 47, 1885 Ky. LEXIS 245 (Ky. Ct. App. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Lewis :

Appellant was indicted, convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for life upon the charge of committing rape on an infant under twelve years of age.

The penalty for such an offense is death or confinement in the penitentiary for life, within the discretion of the jury. The statute provides that “Whosoever shall carnally know a female under the age of twelve, or an idiot, shall be confined in the penitentiary for not less than ten or more than twenty years.”

The record shows that appellant had carnal knowledge of a female under twelve years of age, of the age, in fact, of nine years only.

In conformity to the statute the court properly instructed the jury.

One complaint of counsel for appellant is that the verdict and sentence are erroneous, because there is no evidence to show that the intercourse was had with the child without her consent. The evidence fails to show any active resistance on the part of the child, but in the case of one of such tender years, the jury were authorized to find that there was no consent because it can not be presumed that the child knew or had any conception of the character of the offense being perpetrated. Besides, there was affirmative evidence from which the jury might have found the absence of consent in even one much older than the child on whom the injury was inflicted.

The only other objection urged by counsel for appellant is that the court erred in admitting certain testimony. The evidence is that of a witness who was with the accused a few minutes before the perpetration of the crime, and who testified to certain vulgar expressions, in regard to sexual intercourse, used by the accused.

The evidence was clearly competent to show the depraved character of the accused, and the probability that he would be guilty of such an infamous and beastly offense. There is nothing in the evidence to mitigate or extenuate the crime as charged in the indictment.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Judge Lewis :

Appellant was indicted, convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for life upon the charge of committing rape on an infant under twelve years of age.

The penalty for such an offense is death or confinement in the penitentiary for life, within the discretion of the jury. The statute provides that “Whosoever shall carnally know a female under the age of twelve, or an idiot, shall be confined in the penitentiary for not less than ten or more than twenty years.”

The record shows that appellant had carnal knowledge of a female under twelve years of age, of the age, in fact, of nine years only.

In conformity to the statute the court properly instructed the jury.

One complaint of counsel for appellant is that the verdict and sentence are erroneous, because there is no evidence to show that the intercourse was had with the child without her consent. The evidence fails to show any active resistance on the part of the child, but in the case of one of such tender years, the jury were authorized to find that there was no consent because it can not be presumed that the child knew or had any conception of the character of the offense being perpetrated. Besides, there was affirmative evidence from which the jury might have found the absence of consent in even one much older than the child on whom the injury was inflicted.

The only other objection urged by counsel for appellant is that the court erred in admitting certain testimony. The evidence is that of a witness who was with the accused a few minutes before the perpetration of the crime, and who testified to certain vulgar expressions, in regard to sexual intercourse, used by the accused.

The evidence was clearly competent to show the depraved character of the accused, and the probability that he would be guilty of such an infamous and beastly offense. There is nothing in the evidence to mitigate or extenuate the crime as charged in the indictment.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Ky. Op. 534, 7 Ky. L. Rptr. 47, 1885 Ky. LEXIS 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-commonwealth-kyctapp-1885.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack