Case Name: STATE v. HODGESON et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1912-02-26
Citations: 130 La. 382
Docket Number: No. 19,224
Parties: STATE v. HODGESON et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 130
Pages: 381–383

Head Matter:
(58 South. 14.)
No. 19,224.
STATE v. HODGESON et al.
(Feb. 26, 1912.
Rehearing Denied March 25. 1912.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Criminal Law (§ 404*) — Evidence — Clothing op Prosecutrix.
In a prosecution for rape, clothing purporting to have been worn by the prosecuting' witness, at the time of the alleged crime, must be properly identified before it can be exhibited in evidence.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 891-893, 1457; Dec. Dig. § 404.*]
2. Witnesses (§ 392*) — Impeachment—Contradictory Statements.
In a prosecution for rape, the accused has. the legal right to cross-examine the prosecuting witness, as to a prior written statement made by her, and to compel its production.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses. Cent. Dig. §§ 1249-1251, 1257; Dec. Dig. §■
3. Rape (§ 40*) — Evidence—Character of Prosecutrix.
On a trial for rape, evidence is not admissible to prove specific acts of intercourse between the prosecutrix and other men. The-general rule is that want of chastity must be-shown by general reputation, except that individual acts with the accused prior to the alleged crime may be shown.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Rape, Cent.. Dig. §§ 55-59; Dec. Dig. § 40.*]
Appeal from Twenty-Seventh Judicial District Court, Parish of Ascension; Paul Leche, Judge.
Hardy Hodgeson and another were convicted of an assault with intent to rape, and appeal.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Pugli & Lemann and B. J. Vega, for appellants. Walter Guion, Atty. Gen., and Philip H. Gilbert, Dist. Atty. (G. A. Gondran, of counsel), for the State.

Opinion:
LAND, J.
The accused were indicted for rape, and found guilty of assault with intent to commit rape. They were sentenced, respectively, to imprisonment at hard labor, for three and five years, and have appealed.
The conclusions that we have reached on •other bills of exceptions render it unnec.essary to consider the bills taken to the refusal of the judge to postpone the trial of the cause on the ground of the absence of certain witnesses.
On the trial, certain clothing "alleged to have been worn by the prosecuting witness on the day of the alleged crime" was offered in evidence by the state. Counsel for the accused objected, inter alia, "that the proper foundation had not been laid to the intro•duction of these articles of «clothing (up to this time no evidence having been introduced as to whose articles of clothing the articles tendered were)." "Which objection was overruled by the court as going to the effect and not to the admissibility of the evidence." The judge erred in so ruling. The clothing should have been properly identified before it was exhibited in evidence. 23 Cyc. 1472.
It appears from certain bills of exception that the prosecuting witness, .before the preliminary examination, and at the instance of her mother, had written out her testimony; that the said witness, so testified on cross-examination, and agreed to produce the writing; that later during the progress of the trial the accused, finding out that the writing was in possession of the mother of the witness, moved for a subpoena duces tecum to the mother, which was refused. We think the court erred. The accused had the right to use the document for all the legitimate purposes of a cross-examination of the witness. The objection that the statement was strictly personal to the witness is without force. Prior statements of a witness, whether oral or in writing, may be used for the purposes of impeachment.
The trial judge correctly ruled that, evidence was not admissible to prove specific acts of intercourse with other men. "According to the weight of authority, want of chastity must be shown by general reputation, and not by proof of specific acts, except that individual acts with defendant prior to the alleged crime may be proved." 33 Cyc. 1479-1480.
It is therefore ordered, that the verdict and sentence below be set aside, and that this cause be remanded for a new trial according to law.