People v. Russell
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFellows, J.
(after stating the facts). We are persuaded that these rulings were erroneous. The general rule is that the chastity or want of chastity of the prosecutrix under the age of consent is unimportant in a statutory rape case, and that testimony on that subject is, therefore, immaterial. But this rule, like most rules, has its exceptions. Where the prosecution, in corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix, introduces proof to the effect that the prosecutrix is pregnant or that a physical examination discloses that her person has been violated by some one at about the time charged, the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Nugent v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1850
- Bice v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1897
- State v. BebbSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
- People v. WernerMichigan Supreme Court · 1922
- State v. MobleyWashington Supreme Court · 1906
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- People v. MikulaMichigan Court of Appeals · 1978
- People of Michigan v. Lovell Charles SharpeMichigan Supreme Court · 2018
- Self v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1937
- People v. GarvieMichigan Court of Appeals · 1986
- State v. PaddockMontana Supreme Court · 1930
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.