People v. DeFore
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Antrim. (Ramsdell, J.) Information for seduction. Respondent convicted, and brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.
Respondent was convicted of the crime of seduction. But one act was charged or claimed to have been committed, and that the prosecutrix swore was under a promise of marriage. .No attempt was made to show that she was not a woman of previous chaste character. On her direct and cross-examination she testified to the use of considerable force by respondent before he accomplished his purpose, and said she would not have consented if she could have prevented it. Her testimony given on cross-examination before the justice, signed by her, was produced and identified by her, and was introduced and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Kenyon v. . the PeopleNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
- Boyce v. . People of the State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- People v. MillspaughMichigan Supreme Court · 1863
- Reynolds v. PeopleNew York Supreme Court · 1871
3Cited by23 opinions
- People v. McClinticMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
- Jordan v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1918
- State v. RossWashington Supreme Court · 1915
- People v. HeikkalaMichigan Supreme Court · 1924
- Dunham v. HollowaySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1895
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.