Case Title: State v. Hittson

Citation: 254 P.2d 1063, 57 N.M. 100

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1953-03-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
254 P.2d 1063 (1953) 57 N.M. 100 STATE v. HITTSON. No. 5554. Supreme Court of New Mexico. March 17, 1953. *1064 Manford W. Rainwater, Tucumcari, for appellant. Joe L. Martinez, Atty. Gen. and Hilario Rubio, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. McGHEE, Justice. The appellant seeks a reversal of his conviction for incest on the ground the evidence of the prosecution showed him to be guilty of rape and not incest. The statute under which the appellant was prosecuted is Sec. 41-703, 1941 Comp., which reads: The prosecutrix testified she permitted the appellant, who is her father, to have intercourse with her only because he had a gun and threatened her life if she did not submit to his sexual desires. The trial court instructed the jury over the objection of the appellant if it found beyond a reasonable doubt the appellant had sexual intercourse with his daughter it was immaterial whether he used force, fear or persuasion in order to accomplish the fact. It also refused to give instructions requested by the appellant that if the intercourse was accomplished by the father putting the daughter in fear for her safety the jury could not convict for incest. The appellant says as the state relied for a conviction on the act of sexual intercourse between father and daughter, each must have consented to the act for one to be guilty of incest; that the words "adultery" and "fornication" each imply mutual consent, and this is especially true in view of the wording of the statute "* * * or who shall commit adultery or fornication with each other, * * *". He argues, therefore, when it appears the daughter submitted to the act through fear, the crime is rape and not incest. The general law on the subject is stated in 27 Am.Jur. (Incest) Sec. 5, as follows: The appellant makes a strong appeal for us to follow the able opinion in State v. Jarvis, 1891, 20 Or. 437, 26 P. 302, 23 Am.St.Rep. 141, where under a statute similar to ours that court held there must be a union of the minds as well as the bodies for an act of sexual intercourse by those within the prohibited relationship to constitute incest; and that if the act is accomplished through force the offense is rape and not incest. There is an exhaustive review of the cases in that opinion, among them one by Judge Cooley, De Groat v. People, 1878, *1065 39 Mich. 124, which support the holding of the Oregon court. Another case which supports its view is State v. Thomas, 1880, 53 Iowa 214, 4 N.W. 908, but this last case was disregarded in State v. Chambers, 1893, 87 Iowa 1, 53 N.W. 1090, and in effect overruled in State v. Hurd, 1897, 101 Iowa 391, 70 N.W. 613. We believe nearly all of the cases which support the rule announced in the Jarvis case are cited therein and we will not here list them. There are a number of well-reasoned cases from various jurisdictions with statutes identical with ours, for all practical purposes, which declare the consent of both parties to the act of sexual intercourse between persons related within the prohibited degrees is not necessary to a conviction for incest. Among them is the case of People v. Stratton, 1904, 141 Cal. 604, 75 P. 166, 167. Section 285 of the California Penal Code read, in part, as follows: The Stratton case points out the fact the Oregon court in the Jarvis case interpreted the law as making mutuality of agreement and joint consent of the essence of the crime, and this was done by judicial construction, not by the express declaration of the law. The California court states: The court followed its holding in People v. Kaiser, 1897, 119 Cal. 456, 51 P. 702, and affirmed the conviction. We agree with the California court that the purpose of the statute is to prevent sexual intercourse between close relatives, and the free act of the one being tried, with knowledge of the relationship, is all that is required. It is immaterial that the same testimony would have sustained a conviction for rape. Other cases from states with similar statutes which support our conclusion are: Signs v. State, 1926, 35 Okl.Cr. 340, 250 P. 938; State v. Nugent, 1899, 20 Wash. 522, 56 P. 25; People v. Gleason, 1893, 99 Cal. 359, 33 P. 1111; Commonwealth v. Goodhue, 1840, 43 Mass. 193, 2 Metc. 193; State v. Robinson, 1910, 83 Ohio St. 136, 93 N.E. 623, and State v. Freddy, 1906, 117 La. 121, 41 So. 436. We hold the instruction complained of was correct and the judgment is affirmed. It is so ordered. SADLER, C.J., and COMPTON, COORS, and LUJAN, JJ., concur.