Gaines v. State
| Decision Date | 09 June 1910 |
| Citation | 167 Ala. 70,52 So. 643 |
| Parties | GAINES v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cleburne County; John Pelham, Judge.
Columbus Gaines, alias, etc., was convicted of rape, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Knox Acker, Dixon & Blackmon, for appellant.
Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Defendant was indicted for rape upon Fannie Turner, who testified that the crime was committed in the house of the defendant, about midnight, when defendant crept into the bed with prosecutrix and ravished her; that she was sleeping in a bed by herself but in the same room with defendant and his wife, who was Fannie's sister. Fannie further testified that she fought defendant and cried, and called to her sister, but that her sister did not answer; that defendant remained in bed with her about 10 minutes, and then went back to bed with his wife; that she, Fannie, soon went to sleep, and slept till the next morning, when she got up and went home, which was about a quarter of a mile from defendant's home; that about 10 o'clock that day she told her sister, Ethel about defendant's ravishing her. The state, over the objections and exceptions of defendant, was allowed to prove by Ethel, on her direct examination, the details of the crime as told to her by Fannie--of the defendant's going to bed with her and ravishing her, and of her fighting him and not consenting to the intercourse. This was clearly reversible error. There was no attempt to impeach the prosecutrix nor the witness Ethel; hence there was no occasion to corroborate the testimony of either, by such hearsay testimony. It is true that complaints by women and girls of having been ravished are admissible in evidence, especially so when they are a part of the res gestæ; but they are received in corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix only as proof of the fact that such complaints were made. The details or particulars of the complaint cannot be shown in the first instance by the state. Minute circumstances of the event are not admissible. Proof by third parties as to complaints by the prosecutrix is limited to the fact of the complaints only. Indeed, the prosecutrix will not be allowed to detail what she has told third parties as to what occurred at the time or place of the crime. Of course, she may testify to such occurrences as independent facts and as a part of the res gestæ, but she will not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooks v. State
...that any particular person assaulted her. Bray v. State, 131 Ala. 46, 31 So. 107; Oakley v. State, 135 Ala. 15, 33 So. 23; Gaines v. State, 167 Ala. 70, 52 So. 643. But it has been held that it is competent to prove, not the complaint, but also its character (Leoni v. State, 44 Ala. 110, 11......
-
Huggins v. State
...Bray v. State, 131 Ala. 46, 31 So. 107; Oakley v. State, 135 Ala. 15, 33 So. 23; Posey v. State, 143 Ala. 54, 38 So. 1019; Gaines v. State, 167 Ala. 70, 52 So. 643; Lee v. State, 246 Ala. 69, 72, 18 So.2d 706; Hall v. State, 248 Ala. 33, 26 So.2d 566; Aaron v. State, Ala., 122 So.2d 360; an......
-
Langford v. State, 4 Div. 320
...of the testimony of the woman. Lacy v. State, 45 Ala. 80; Smith v. State, 47 Ala 540; Barnett v. State, 83 Ala 40, 3 So 612; Gaines v. State, 167 Ala. 70, 52 So 643. '. . 'The details or particulars of a complaint cannot be shown by the prosecution in the first instance. Therefore, complain......
-
Lang v. State, 8 Div. 514
...Oakley v. State, 135 Ala. 15, 33 So. 23; Posey v. State, 143 Ala. 54, 38 So. 1019; Bray v. State, 131 Ala. 46, 31 So. 107; Gaines v. State, 167 Ala. 70, 52 So. 643; Bradham v. State, 27 Ala.App. 225, 170 So. 222; Newton v. State, 32 Ala.App. 640, 29 So.2d 353; Allford v. State, 31 Ala.App. ......