Ashford v. State
| Decision Date | 05 January 1903 |
| Citation | 33 So. 174,81 Miss. 414 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | JAMES ASHFORD v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI |
October 1902
FROM the circuit court of Winston county HON. GUION Q. HALL Judge.
Ashford the appellant, was indicted and tried for rape, the charge being that he ravished and carnally knew one Tina Carter. He was convicted of an assault and battery with intent to ravish. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
Reversed and remanded.
Daniel, Brantley & Dobbs, for appellant.
The second and third instructions granted for the state are erroneous. They were calculated to influence the verdict reached. The court erred in permitting the witness, Caroline Carter, to give, during her examination in chief, the details and particulars of the complaint made by the prosecutrix to her, as it was no part of the res gestae. Rice on Crim. Ev., sec. 521, and cases therein cited; Bish. on Crim. Proc. (3d ed.), 2d Vol., sec. 963; Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, Vol. 19, p. 959, secs. 266, 607, et seq.
The testimony is wholly insufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty in this case. It must stand, if at all, upon the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix, Tina Carter, alone. This court has held in the case of Monroe v. State, 71 Miss. 196, in accord with numerous other authorities, that while one may be convicted of the crime of rape on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix alone, such testimony should always be scrutinized with great caution, and if she is discredited by the facts and circumstances in the case, then the verdict of guilty should not be sustained. In this case, as in the case of Monroe v. State, supra, the prosecutrix is not sustained by a single corroborating circumstance, but she is contradicted by many facts and circumstances. As in the Monroe case, there are no "tokens of virginity, " "no blows, " "no bruises, " "no threats, " and the testimony as to the tearing of the clothes is contradicted by the witnesses.
William Williams, assistant attorney-general, for appellee.
The law is properly announced in the first and third instructions for the state, and in a number of instructions for the defendant.
Taking into consideration all of the instructions, it is absolutely impossible to reach the conclusion that the appellant was in any way prejudiced or injured by the second instruction for the state. All of the instructions must be considered together. Railroad v. Field, 46 Miss. 573; Hawthorne v. State, 58 Miss. 778.
If an instruction is erroneous, when taken alone, it will not necessitate a reversal, provided the defendant's instructions give him the full benefit of all the law he is entitled to invoke, and all the instructions considered together correctly announce the law. Skates v. State, 64 Miss. 644.
It was proper for the witness, Caroline Carter, to testify to the statements made by the prosecutrix immediatetly after the crime has been committed. Bish. New Crim. Proc., sec. 963; 1 Whar. Crim. Law (9th ed.), sec. 2273; Whar. Crim. Ev. (9th ed.), sec. 272; Brown v. State, 72 Miss. 997.
James Ashford was convicted in the circuit court of Winston county of an assault upon Tina Carter with intent to ravish her. His conviction is supported solely by her testimony, discredited in some respects, yet still sufficient to be laid before the jury. Shortly after the alleged commission of the crime, she made complaint of the outrage upon her to her mother, and this was given in evidence; and over the objection of the defendant the particulars of her complaint were laid in detail before the jury. A complaint of a crime upon one made by the injured person is admitted as original evidence only in the case of rape. The reason of the exception in cases of rape is well stated by Earl, J., in People v. O'Sullivan , ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Neil
... ... 206, 71 N.E. 443; ... Kearse v. State (Tex. Cr. App.), 88 S.W. 363; ... Sutton v. State, 123 Ga. 125, 51 S.E. 316; Suggs ... v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. App. 151, 79 S.W. 307; Dina v ... State, 46 Tex. Cr. App. 402, 78 N.W. 229, and cases; ... Ross v. State (Tex.), 78 S.W. 514; Ashford v ... State, 81 Miss. 414, 33 South, 174; State v. Hamey ... (Mo.), 65 S.W. 946, and cases.) ... "The ... intent with which the assault is committed must be the ... specific intent to rape." (23 Ency. of Law, 2d ed., ... In ... order to convict the defendant of the ... ...
-
Lewis v. State
...State, 35 So. 202, 82 Miss. 784; Jeffries v. State, 42 So. 801, 89 Miss. 643; Simmons v. State, 61 So. 826, 105 Miss. 48; Ashford v. State, 33 So. 174, 81 Miss. 414; Dickey v. State, 38 So. 776, 86 Miss. 525; v. State, 47 So. 898, 94 Miss. 104; Clark v. State, 87 So. 286, 124 Miss. 841; Ada......
-
Jones v. State
... ... Hicks ... v. State, 130 Miss. 411, 94 So. 218; Watkins v ... State, 134 Miss. 211, 98 So. 537 ... Corroboration ... as given by the witness, Stowell, and the appellant himself ... is sufficient to sustain the verdict ... Ashford ... v. State, 81 Miss. 414, 33 So. 174; Anderson v. State, 82 ... Miss. 784, 35 So. 202; Dickey v. State, 86 Miss. 525, 38 So ... 776; Frost v. State, 100 Miss. 796, 57 So. 221; Clarke v ... State, 124 Miss. 841, 87 So. 286; Hollins v. State, 128 Miss ... 119, 90 So. 630; Thompson v. State, ... ...
-
Williams v. State, 53809
...of consent. See also Brooks v. State, 242 So.2d 865 (Miss.1971); Dickey v. State, 86 Miss. 525, 38 So. 776 (1905); Ashford v. State, 81 Miss. 414, 33 So. 174 (1902). When faced with a similar situation concerning hearsay testimony following a sexual assault, the Michigan Court of Appeals He......