People v. Kennedy

Upon an information charging him therewith, defendant was convicted of rape, alleged to have been committed upon a female, a young girl of the age of fourteen years, who was not his wife. From the judgment and an order denying his motion for a new trial defendant appeals.

[1] It is urged that the trial court committed prejudicial error in permitting the district attorney, after he had concluded his opening argument to the jury, to reopen the case for the purpose of introducing direct, evidence that the prosecutrix was not the wife of defendant. The reopening of a case for further evidence, even after a motion by defendant to advise the jury to acquit, is within the discretion of the trial court. (State v. Meister, 60 Or. 469 , [ 120 Pac. 406 ]; State v. Hornaday, 67 Wash. 660 , [ 122 Pac. 322 ]; Froman v. Commonwealth, 19 Ky. Law Rep. 948 , [ 42 S. W. 728 ] ; State v. Murphy, 9 Nev. 394 ; 16 C. J. 871-873. See, also, Cousins v. Partridge, 79 Cal. 228 , [ 21 Pac. 745 ]; People v. Benc, 130 Cal. 165 , [ 62 Pac. 404 ]; People v. Lewis, 124 Cal. 553 , [45 L. R. A. 783, 57 Pac. 470 ] ; People v. McPherson, 6 Cal. App. 265 , [ 91 Pac. 1098 ].) 'The record here discloses no abuse of the…