Case Name: THE PEOPLE, Appellant, v. PATRICK SHEA, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1899-06-19
Citations: 125 Cal. 151
Docket Number: Crim. No. 509
Parties: THE PEOPLE, Appellant, v. PATRICK SHEA, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 125
Pages: 151–154

Head Matter:
[Crim. No. 509.
In Bank.
June 19, 1899.]
THE PEOPLE, Appellant, v. PATRICK SHEA, Respondent.
Criminal Law — Rape — Evidence — Consent to Intercourse with Other Men.—Upon the trial of a person charged with rape, evidence is admissible to show that the prosecutrix, previous to the time of the alleged commission of the offense charged, had consented to the having of sexual intercourse with other men.
Id.—Case Affirmed—Stare Decisis.—People v. Benson, 6 Cal. 221, affirmed, as having evidenced the law of this state for many years, and as being supported by respectable authority, though the weight of authority may be to the contrary.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. Carroll Cook, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Tirey L. Ford, Attorney General, and A. A. Moore, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, for Appellant.
Only the general character of the prosecutrix can he shown, and not particular acts of unchastity. (2 Roscoe’s Criminal Evidence, 1122; 1 McLean on Criminal Law, sec. 46; Underhill on Criminal Evidence, 480; 19 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 62; 3 Greenleaf on Evidence, sec. 214; 2 Bishop’s New Criminal Procedure, 965; Commonwealth v. Harris, 131 Mass. 336; Commonwealth v. Regan, 105 Mass. 593; State v. Fitzsimon, 18 R. I. 236; 49 Am. St. Rep. 766; State v. Brown, 55 Kan. 766; McDermott v. State, 13 Ohio St. 332; 82 Am. Dec. 444; State v. Knapp, 45 N. H. 148; McQuirk v. State, 84 Ala. 435; Shartzer v. State, 63 Md. 149; 52 Am. Rep. 501; Rex v. Hodgson, 1 Russ. & R. 211; Regina v. Robins, 2 Moody & R. 512; Regina v. Holmes, L. R. 1 C. C. 304; State v. Jefferson, 6 Ired. 305; State v. White, 35 Mo. 500; People v. McLean, 71 Mich. 309; 15 Am. St. Rep. 263; Miller v. Curtis, 158 Mass. 131; 35 Am. St. Rep. 469 (affirming Commonwealth v. Harris, supra); State v. Campbell, 20 Nev. 122; State v. Forshner, 43 N. H. 89; 80 Am. Dec. 132; Ritchie v.State, 58 Ind. 355.)
A. E. Mack, and A. D. Lemon, for Respondent.
The evidence of particular acts of unchastity of the prosecutrix with other men was admissible. (People v. Benson, 6 Cal. 221; 65 Am. Dec. 506; People v. Johnson, 106 Cal. 289; Brennan v. People, 7 Hun, 171; Woods v. People, 55 N. Y. 515; 14 Am. Rep. 309; People v. Abbot, 19 Wend. 192; Benstine v. State, 2 Lea, 169; 31 Am. Rep. 593; Titus v. State, 7 Baxt. 132; Shirwin v. People, 69 Ill. 55.)

Opinion:
GAROUTTE, J.
Information charging the crime of rape. Defendant was convicted, and on his motion the court made an order granting a new trial, from which order the people have appealed.
The question involved in this appeal arises upon the admissibility of certain 'evidence. This evidence was introduced by defendant and tended to prove that the prosecutrix, previous to the time when the commission of the offense here charged was laid in the information, had consented to the having of sexual intercourse with other men. In the early case of People v. Benson, 6 Cal. 221, 65 Am. Dec. 506, this identical question was involved, and it was there held that such evidence was competent and admissible. In People v. Johnson, 106 Cal. 289, the Benson case is cited, and the court said: "This class of evidence is admissible for the purpose of tending to show the non-probability of resistance upon the part of the prosecutrix. For it is certainly more probable that a woman who has done these things voluntarily in the past would be likely to consent than one whose past reputation was without blemish, and whose personal conduct could not truthfully be assailed."
It may be conceded that the weight of authority is opposed to the rule laid down in the Benson case. Yet there is respectable authority supporting the doctrine as there declared. (State v. Sutherland, 30 Iowa, 573; Benstine v. State, 2 Lea, 175; 31 Am. Rep. 593; State v. Patterson, 88 Mo. 91; 57 Am. Rep. 374; People v. Abbot, 19 Wend. 192; Brennan v. People, 7 Hun, 171; Woods v. People, 55 N. Y. 515; 14 Am. Rep. 309.) The Benson case was quite well considered. And in view of the fact that it has stood so many years as evidencing the law of this state upon the proposition the reasons urged for its overthrow at this time are not deemed sufficient by the court.
For the foregoing reasons the order granting the new trial is affirmed.
Henshaw, J., Temple, J., Harrison, J., and Van Dyke, J., concurred.