Pennsylvania v. Sullivan
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Washington County
THIS was an indictment for a rape on Sarah Sutherland, on 19th June, 1793. suggested that both penetration and emission must be proved; though he admitted, that this opinion had been doubted by lord Hale. He urged also the incredibility of the testimony.
1Opinion of the Court
President.
Emissio feminis of itself makes not rape without actual penetration, but it is said that, as evidence of penetration, it is proper evidence on a trial for a rape. The essence of the crime is not the begetting a child, which cannot be done without emission; but the violence done to the person and feelings of the woman, which is completed by penetration, without emission. We are therefore inclined to be of lord Hale’s opinion, that the crime is sufficiently proved, when penetration is proved. If, together with penetration, *144emission must be proved, may not the ravisher prevent proof of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- People v. HodgkinMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Territory v. Chee SiuHawaii Supreme Court · 1921