Addington v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 21 September 1933
• Citation: 161 Va. 975
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: CLARENCE ADDINGTON v. COMMONWEALTH.

Page 975

161 Va. 975

CLARENCE ADDINGTON v. COMMONWEALTH.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Staunton.

September 21, 1933.

Present, Campbell, C.J., and Holt, Epes, Hudgins, Gregory and Browning, JJ.

1. RAPE — Corroboration of Prosecutrix — Necessity of Corroboration. — A conviction of rape may be sustained upon the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix if the guilt of the accused is believed by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. RAPE — Uncorroborated Testimony of Prosecutrix — Testimony of Prosecutrix Inherently Incredible. — To sustain a conviction of rape upon the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix, her testimony must not be inherently incredible.

3. RAPE — Victim under the Age of Sixteen — Force. — To sustain a conviction of rape where the victim is under the age of sixteen years it is not necessary to establish that it was accomplished by actual force. It is rape to carnally know a female child under the age of sixteen whether it be with or without her consent and whether it be with or without actual force, because under that age she cannot legally consent and constructive force is present.

4. RAPE — Uncorroborated Testimony of Prosecutrix — Testimony Inherently Incredible — Case at Bar. — In the instant case plaintiff in error was convicted of rape on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix. The testimony of prosecutrix was inherently incredible. If she had been ravished by the accused on Friday afternoon it is inconceivable that she would have returned to his home, eaten her supper at the same table with him, and failed to show any resentment or to tell the members of his family of the dastardly act. Again, if she had been ravished by the accused on Friday at the home of her aunt, it is difficult to understand just why she would go back to the same place and at the same time suffer the same fate again on Saturday and again on Sunday and during the entire time remain at the home of the accused as a member of his family and fail to tell any one of the offenses that had been committed against her. Prosecutrix was not laboring under any fright or fear of bodily harm. She gave no details of the force used. She testified as to no marks upon her body and she told of no tear in her clothes. She at first blamed another man for her condition and had her father swear out a warrant for him charging him with rape. Later she changed her story and caused the arrest of accused. She waited five months before she told any one.

Held: That the conviction of accused must be set aside.

5. EVIDENCE — Incredible Evidence. — Courts are not required to believe that which is contrary to human experience and which they know to be incredible. They are not bound to accept as true that which in the nature of things could not have occurred.

Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Scott county.

The opinion states the case.

S. W. Coleman and S. H. Bond, for the plaintiff in error.

John R. Saunders, Attorney-General, and Edwin H. Gibson and Collins Denny, Jr., Assistant Attorneys-General, for the Commonwealth.

GREGORY, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

Clarence Addington has been indicted and convicted of rape and his punishment fixed at five years in the penitentiary. The prosecutrix, Niles McConnell, was more than fifteen but less than sixteen years of age at the time.

There are several assignments of error. Counsel for the accused earnestly contends that the court should have set the verdict aside because it was not sufficiently supported by credible evidence. Only two witnesses, the prosecutrix and her father, testified on behalf of the Commonwealth at the trial, and if the verdict is to be sustained at all it necessarily must be by their testimony.

The prosecutrix testified that for two years prior to the time of the offense here involved, she had been living with her aunt, Callie Hillman, whose home was in plain view of the home of the father of the accused, where he resided. She had known him for several years. The aunt, Callie Hillman, left her home for a few days and arranged for the prosecutrix to stay in the home of the father of the accused, but before leaving she instructed the prosecutrix to return to her home each afternoon to feed the chickens and stock. When the prosecutrix went over to the home of the aunt on Friday afternoon to feed the chickens she testified that the accused came there and by the use of force and against her will compelled her to have intercourse with him. She made no outcry, but returned to the home of the father of the accused and ate supper at the family table with the accused and continued to stay there. The next afternoon she again went to the home of her aunt to feed the chickens, and the accused came and again forced her to have intercourse with him, and again on the next afternoon the same thing occurred at the same place. She remained in the home of the father of the accused for several days, but made no complaint to any one that she had been outraged. When the aunt returned and the prosecutrix returned to her home she still made no complaint. She made her first...