to connect the accused with the commission of the offense.24 In some states, it is not required that the evidence of the injured party be corroborated.25 In other states corroborating evidence is essential.26 Where the evidence of the prosecutrix is contradictory, or her general reputation for truth, honesty and integrity in the community is bad, and the accused denies the accusation against him and is corroborated, evidence of the prosecutrix will not warrant conviction of incest without corroboration.27

§ 794. Weight and sufficiency of evidence.-Where the evidence of the female is corroborated, and there is positive evidence of the defendant's guilt, a new trial for insufficiency of evidence will not be granted although it is conceded that the prosecutrix is an accomplice.28 In the prosecution of a father for incest with his daughter, evidence of her mental attitude toward him and conduct goes only to the weight and credibility of her evidence as tending to show a motive to falsify and does not destroy its probative force.29

24 State v. Andrus, 29 Idaho 1, 156 Pac. 421.

25 State v. Dunn (Iowa), 160 N. W. 302; State v. Pelser (Iowa), 163 N. W. 600, female was under the age of consent).

26 Bradshaw v. State (Tex. Cr.), 198 S. W. 942 (held that the evidence of a stepdaughter, 19 years of age, who consents to intercourse,

being an accomplice in a prosecution for incest, must be corroborated).

29 State v. Dunn (Iowa), 110 N. 156 Pac. 421.

28 Brown v. State, 18 Ga. App. 30, 88 S. E. 710.

29 State v. Dunn (Iowa), 110 N. W. 302.

§ 795. Public indecency.-Any grossly indecent conduct in public is indictable as a nuisance, such as open, notorious lewdness,1 openly frequenting houses of ill-fame, habitually using profane or indecent language in public,3 habitual public notorious drunkenness, or permitting the copulation of animals in public.

4

6

§ 796. Indecent exhibitions.-The exhibition of an indecent picture is indictable as a nuisance, and is also prohibited by many statutes, not as a nuisance, but as an offense against morals. Generally, a lewd picture is such not from the fact of representing a nude body, but when it is one tending to debauch, corrupt and inflame the minds of those who see it with inordinate lustful desires.8

1 Crouse v. State, 16 Ark. 566, 23 So. 1005; Delany v. People, 10 Mich. 241.

2 State v. Brunson, 2 Bailey L. (S. Car.) 149.

3 Goree v. State, 71 Ala. 7; State v. Appling, 25 Mo. 315, 69 Am. Dec. 469.

4 State v. Sowers, 52 Ind. 311; Smith v. State, 1 Humph. (Tenn.) 396.

5 Nolin V. Franklin, 4 Yerg. (Tenn.) 163.

6 Reg. v. Grey, 4 Fost. & F. 73. 7 Commonwealth v. Sharpless, 2 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 91, 7 Am. Dec. 632.

8 People v. Muller, 96 N. Y. 408, 2 N. Y. Cr. 375, 48 Am. Rep. 685; Commonwealth V. Sharpless, 2 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 91, 7 Am. Dec. 632.

If the picture is in itself indecent and offensive, it is held that an innocent motive is no defense. The same rules apply to scandalous and indecent exhibitions other than pictures.10

§ 797. Obscene language.-The utterance of obscene words in public, is indictable at common law as a violation of decency and morals. The publication of an obscene book, photograph or picture is also indictable as a libel.12 Some statutes make the sending of obscene letters through the mails, 13 or use of obscene language in public or in presence of a woman,14 indictable.

It has been said that it is for the court to determine whether the language used is obscene, and for the jury to determine the intention of the person using it;15 but other courts have held that the entire question of obscenity is for the jury.16

If the question is of libel, it is held that, where publications necessary to medical instruction are generally disseminated, so as to corrupt the public, the publishers are indictable and philanthropic or scientific intent is no defense.17

9 Reg. v. Grey, 4 Fost. & F. 73; Steele v. Brannan, L. R. 7 C. P. 261. 10 Jacks v. State, 22 Ala. 73; Commonwealth v. Dejardin, 126 Mass. 46, 30 Am. Rep. 652, 3 Am. Cr. 290; People v. Doris, 14 App. Div. (N. Y.) 117, 43 N. Y. S. 571, 12 N. Y. Cr. 100; State v. Andrews, 35 Ore. 388, 58 Pac. 765; Reg. v. Saunders, L. R. 1 Q. B. Div. 15, 13 Cox Cr. C. 116.

11 State v. Appling, 25 Mo. 315, 69 Am. Dec. 469; State v. Toole, 106 N. Car. 736, 11 S. E. 168; Bell v. State, 1 Swan (Tenn.) 42.

12 People v. Eastman, 188 N. Y. 478, 81 N. E. 459, 11 Ann. Cas. 302; In re Worthington Co., 30 N.

Y. S. 361, 62 N. Y. St. 115, 24 L.
R. A. 110n. See also, ante, § 815.

13 Larison v. State, 49 N. J. L. 256, 9 Atl. 700, 60 Am. Rep. 606; note to Ann. Cas. 1912A, 434.

14 Thomas v. State, 92 Ala. 85, 9 So. 398; St. Louis v. Slupsky, 254 Mo. 309, 162 S. W. 155, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 919n.

15 Smith v. State, 24 Tex. App. 1, 5 S. W. 510.

16 People v. Muller, 96 N. Y. 408, 2 N. Y. Cr. 375, 48 Am. Rep. 635, 4 Am. Cr. 453.

17 Commonwealth v. Landis, 8 Phila. (Pa.) 453; Reg. v. Hicklin, L. R. 3 Q. B. 360.

If certain filthy details of court proceedings are published in a newspaper, this may transgress the privilege allowed of printing court news, and may constitute an indictable offense. 18

19

§ 798. Indecent exposure of person.-An intentional or negligent indecent exposure of the private parts of the person to public view is indictable at common law as a nuisance.1 There must be more than an exposure merely to the waist, at least a portion of the private parts must actually be shown,20 and the exposure must be in a public place in view of others,21 and of more than one person,22 though it is enough that the exposure was where people were in view, even if they did not see the exposure.23 This is also in many jurisdictions a statutory offense.

§ 799. Indecent treatment of the dead-Sepulture-Cemeteries. At common law indecent treatment of the dead is indictable. Among acts so indictable are the exposure of a dead body or its disposal without proper burial rites,24 this offense sometimes being called sepulture; to wantonly disturb a dead body;25 to sell it for dissection, without authority of the deceased, in his life, or his relatives, or direction

18 Commonwealth v. Herald Pub. Co., 128 Ky. 424, 108 S. W. 892, 16 Ann. Cas. 761.

19 State v. Rose, 32 Mo. 560; Britain v. State, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 203; Rex v. Crunden, 2 Campb. 89, 11 Rev. Rep. 671; In re Sedley's Case, 17 How. St. Tr. 155.

20 Ardery v. State, 56 Ind. 328; Tucker v. State, 28 Tex. App. 541, 13 S. W. 1004; Rex v. Gallard, 1 Sess. Cas. 231.

21 Lorimer v. State, 76 Ind. 495; State v. Pepper, 68 N. Car. 259, 12

Am. Rep. 637; State v. Griffin, 43
Tex. 538.

22 Reg. v. Webb, 1 Den. 338, 2 Car. & K. 933.

23 Van Houten v. State, 46 N. J. L. 16, 50 Am. Rep. 397, 4 Am. Cr. 272; Reg. v. Farrell, 9 Cox Cr. C. 446.

24 Kanavan's Case, 1 Greenl: (Maine) 226; Reg. v. Stewart, 12 Ad. & El. 773.

25 Reg. v. Sharpe, 7 Cox Cr. C.

214.

of public authorities;28 to remove a body after burial;27 to dispose without inquest of a body on which an inquest should have been held.28

It is also indictable at common law to deface a monument to the dead, or a tombstone;29 and many statutes make the desecration of a cemetery by cutting trees, removing fences, and similar acts criminal;30 and if a place has once been legally established as a cemetery, the mere passage of time does not remove it from the law's protection.31

28 State v. McClure, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 328; Rex v. Cundick, Dowl. & R. (N. P.) 13; Rex v. Lynn, 2 Term. Rep 733,

27 State v. Pugsley, 75 Iowa 742, 38 N. W. 498, 8 Am. Cr. 100; Commonwealth v. Cooley, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 37.

28 Reg. v. Clerk, 1 Salk. 377; Stephen Dig. Crim. L., art. 175.

29 Commonwealth v. Viall, 2 Allen (Mass.) 512; Phillips v. State, 29 Tex. 226.

30 Lay v. State, 12 Ind. App. 362, 39 N. E. 768; Phillips v. State, 29 Tex. 226.

31 Commonwealth v. Wellington, 7 Allen (Mass.) 299.