Coppage v. State

• Decision Date: 19 May 1943
• Docket Number: A-10252.
• Parties: COPPAGE v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

137 P.2d 797

76 Okla.Crim. 428

COPPAGE v. STATE.

No. A-10252.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

May 19, 1943

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Under the statutes of this State rape by force is rape in the first degree. The punishment is by death or imprisonment in the penitentiary not less than fifteen years. Secs. 2518 2519 Okla.Stat.1931, 21 Okl.St.Ann.1941 §§ 1114, 1115.

2. This court has often announced in its decisions that in a rape case it is not necessary, in order to sustain the conviction that the evidence of the prosecutrix should be corroborated but we have also announced in these same cases an exception to this rule that where the evidence of the prosecutrix is improbable, contradictory, and not of that character which justifies its belief, or where she has been impeached, that it will be required that her testimony be corroborated.

3. The rule supported by the weight of authority is that the prosecutrix may testify as to the making of a complaint after the assault, but may not testify as to the details.

4. One to whom complaint has been made may also testify to the making of the complaint by the prosecutrix, her condition and appearance at the time the complaint was made, but may not be permitted to testify to statements made by the prosecutrix as to the details of the outrage as reported to the witness.

5. If the statement made is such as may be a part of the res gestae it is admissible; but if the time is such as to give an opportunity for fabrication or falsification, and it does not come under the rule of res gestae, it is inadmissible.

6. The admission of statements as a part of the res gestae is one of the well recognized exceptions to the general rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible.

7. It is not possible to define the term "res gestae" by any exact definition which will fit all cases. Declarations to become a part of the res gestae, must accompany the act which they are supposed to characterize and explain. They must be voluntary and spontaneous, and made at a time so near, either prior or subsequent to the main act as to exclude the idea of deliberation or fabrication.

8. Evidence examined, and statements made by prosecutrix some time after the alleged assault and some distance from the scene thereof found not to be a part of the res gestae, and therefore inadmissible, and prejudicial to the rights of the defendant.

9. Where defendant is charged with the commission of a crime, the general rule is that evidence of other charges pending against him and untried, are inadmissible against him on the charge with which he is being tried. Efforts of the state to convey this information to the jury found to be prejudicial to the defendant.

10. Defendant is entitled to a fair and impartial trial of the charges upon which he is being tried.

11. The state only demands the punishment of a citizen when his guilt has been clearly established according to the forms and rules of law prescribed for ascertaining his guilt. It is not to shield the guilty, but to protect the innocent, that the courts are steadfast in upholding the forms and rules of law by which it may be lawfully determined who are guilty.

Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; Oras A. Shaw, Judge.

A. L. Coppage was convicted of rape by force and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

JONES, P.J., dissenting in part.

Justus & Lucas, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Dixie Gilmer, Co. Atty., of Tulsa, for defendant in error.

BAREFOOT Judge.

Defendant A. L. Coppage was charged in the District Court of Tulsa County with the crime of rape by force, was tried, convicted, and his punishment assessed by the jury at confinement in the State Penitentiary for a period of twenty-five years, and has appealed.

For reversal of this case it is contended:

First, that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment and sentence, and the court erred in refusing to sustain a demurrer to the evidence, and in refusing to give a requested peremptory instruction for acquittal.

Second, that the court erred in permitting the introduction of incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial testimony.

Third, that defendant did not receive a fair and impartial trial under the law and facts.

These three assignments of error are condensed from the nine submitted in defendant's brief, and may be considered together. A statement of the evidence is essential.

Defendant A. L. Coppage was a white man, married, forty years of age, and lived in his own home at 849 North Gary in the City of Tulsa with his family, which consisted of his wife and two daughters, ages ten and fourteen years. He was charged by information filed in the District Court of Tulsa County on November 7, 1941, with having on April 28, 1941, in Tulsa County, committed the crime of rape by force upon a negro woman by the name of Alma Floyd, who had previously been married, but was then separated from her husband.

The evidence of the prosecutrix was that on the night of the assault she was working for Mrs. Don Hagler, at 1210 E. 19th Street, in the city of Tulsa. She left her servant's quarters at that place about eight thirty the evening of Monday, April 28, 1941, and went to the home of her cousin, Alma Gordon, some eight or ten blocks away. She remained there until about ten o'clock, when she started back to her home, walking upon the public streets and being accompanied about a block by her cousin. As she proceeded home, her attention was attracted by a man in an automobile, who asked her if she wanted to ride home. She declined the invitation, and the man told her he was going down the street and when he came back he would take her home. The man drove about half a block, turned his car around and came back. She had been frightened, and was standing in front of a big home, where she could run in if anything happened. As she stood facing the house she heard a noise, turned around and saw the man with one foot on the running board of the car, and a pistol in his hand. The man did not get out of the car, but while in this position, put the pistol right in her face and told her to get in the car. She made no attempt to run to the house, or to make any alarm, but by reason of her fear, she got into the car. He drove through the streets of Tulsa, and into the country and onto a secluded country road. He made proposals to her that are unprintable, and finally got out, went around the car, opened the door and jerked her out onto the running board. He then unfastened his pants, and dropped them down around his feet, and when she refused to do as he commanded, he having his pistol in his hands at all times, he told her to get up, and when she moved too slowly, shoved her into the front seat of the car, and knocked her head down under the steering wheel. She testified that he tore her pants off and two buttons off her waist but did not tear her skirt. After he had torn her clothes off, he put his gun on the running board and stooped down to the ground, feeling around, and told her he was looking for his false teeth. He then had intercourse with her by force. She testified that when defendant had accomplished his purpose he told her if she would keep her mouth shut he would take her to town. He then took her to Nineteenth and Madison, which was in very close proximity to her home, let her out of the car, and as he drove away, she got the tag number of his car. She did not write it down, but remembered the number, and it was 2-5139. After she reached her quarters, she awakened Mrs. Hagler, by whom she was employed and who was asleep upstairs, and notified her of the assault. The evidence of Mrs. Hagler as to this conversation will hereafter be given in full. She did not notify the police until the following Thursday morning, May 1, 1941. A policewoman then went to her home and arranged for her to come to the police station in the afternoon. She went and gave a description of the party who had assaulted her, and also the number of the car. She did not know and had never seen the defendant prior to the assault, and the next time she saw him was when she identified him among five persons who were presented at the police station on September 25, 1941, when she was taken there by the police to see if she could identify him, four months and twenty-eight days after the assault. On this date she also identified the automobile by the tag number, at a garage in Sand Springs. She was positive as to the date of the assault being April 28, 1941, and fixed this date as a certainty by reason of the fact that Mrs. Hagler gave a party the next day, at which she served the guests.

This is a fair statement of her evidence, and other evidence given will be referred to in a discussion of this case.

The evidence relied upon by the State to corroborate that of the prosecutrix is, first, the fact that defendant owned an automobile on the date of the assault, a description of which compared favorably with that given by prosecutrix, and which bore the license number given the police by the prosecutrix. Second, the fact that defendant admitted that he had false teeth, thereby confirming the statements she claimed he made at the time of the assault. Third, certain facts concerning the automobile of defendant. Fourth, certain statements made to police officers at and after the arrest of defendant, reference to which will hereafter be made. Fifth, the testimony of Mrs. Don Hagler on rebuttal, as to certain statements made by prosecutrix to her after she reached home, following the assault.

After the prosecutrix had testified, the State placed upon the witness stand in chief five witnesses. Mrs. Beulah Johnson Alfred DeMoss, Grady Porter, Joe Phillips and ...