Citation Numbers: 47 N.J.L. 279
Judges: Parker
Filed Date: 6/15/1885
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/9/2022
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This case, by agreement, was heard in the branch court.
William O’Blenis was indicted and convicted of the crime of rape on Eliza O’Blenis. The case of the state rested mainly upon the testimony of the prosecutrix.
A witness produced on behalf of defendant was asked to testify as to the general reputation of the prosecutrix for chastity. The court ruled the question irrelevant and unlawful. The ground of objection was not to the form of the question, but to the character of the evidence sought to be introduced. The assignment of error presents the question whether, on an indictment for rape, the general reputation of the prosecutrix for chastity may be proved in defence.
Of course it would not amount to justification to prove that the prosecutrix was of unchaste character. Such a person is under the protection of the law against violence. But as the evidence of this crime commonly rests upon the testimony of the prosecutrix, and as force is essential to its consummation, evidence of her general reputation for chastity is regarded as relevant and competent as bearing on the question
The court erred in excluding the testimony offered, and, therefore, the judgment should be reversed and a new trial awarded.