Donaldson v. People

• Decision Date: 03 April 1905
• Citation: 33 Colo. 333,80 P. 906
• Parties: DONALDSON v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

80 P. 906

33 Colo. 333

DONALDSON v. PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Colorado

April 3, 1905

Error to District Court, Larimer County; James E. Garrigues, Judge.

T. J Donaldson was convicted of rape, and he brings error. Affirmed.

Frank J. Annis and Fred W. Stow, for plaintiff in error.

N. C Miller, Atty. Gen., H. J. Hersey, and I. B. Melville, for the People.

STEELE J.

T. J Donaldson, having been convicted of the crime of rape in the district court of Larimer county, brings the case here for review. The court, it is alleged in the assignment of errors discussed, committed error (1) in refusing to permit the defendant to cross-examine witnesses for the prosecution in support of his charge that a conspiracy existed on the part of certain officers of the law and others to unlawfully secure his conviction; (2) in receiving declarations of the prosecutrix made several months after the assaults charged, without satisfactory explanation of the delay; (3) in permitting witnesses to state the details of the complaint made by the prosecutrix; (4) in excluding from the consideration of the jury evidence tending to prove a conspiracy, and in giving an instruction stating that there was no evidence of a conspiracy to prosecute the defendant, and directing that the statements of counsel in opening the case be disregarded.

It appears to us that great latitude was allowed the defendant in his cross-examination of the witnesses for the state. The matters sought to be brought out were not proper on cross-examination, as they had not been the subject of inquiry on direct examination, and did not affect the credibility of the witnesses. The court did not unreasonably curtail the privilege of cross-examination, and no error is shown to have been committed.

The prosecutrix made no complaint of the assaults made upon her until several months after their occurrence, but she stated that the reason she did not make earlier complaint was that her father had threatened to kill her if she told any one. No error was committed in receiving testimony that the complaint was made, and the explanation of the delay, as the jury was properly instructed upon the subject.

The witness Nellie Light was permitted to testify, over the objection of the defendant, to the fact that the witness Violet Donaldson had stated to her that the defendant had maltreated her and had had sexual intercourse with her at the home near Ft. Collins. The specific objection was that the statement was not made in the presence of the defendant. The rule which permits the declaration of the prosecutrix in cases of rape to be given, limits such statements to the mere complaint, and prohibits the giving of the details of the offense, the name of the assailant, or the place where the assault was committed. 'Though the prosecutrix may be asked whether she made complaint of the injury, and when and to whom, and the person to whom she complained is usually called to prove that fact, yet the particular facts which she stated are not admissible in evidence, except when elicited in cross-examination, or by way of confirming her testimony after it has been impeached. On the direct examination the practice has been merely to ask whether she made complaint that such an outrage had been perpetrated upon her, and to receive only a simple yes or no. Indeed, the complaint constitutes no part of the res gestae. It is only a fact corroborative of the testimony of the complainant, and where she is not a witness in the case it is wholly inadmissible.' 3 Greenleaf on Evidence,§ 213. This is the law as it prevails in nearly all of the states. In a very few of the states the details are held to be admissible and in Michigan the details of the complaint are held admissible under some circumstances, as where the prosecutrix is of tender years. By the early common law the woman was required to immediately make complaint to some credible person of the injury she had suffered, and to afterwards make a charge before a public official. Later the requirements concerning the making of the complaint were removed, but if she did not, shortly after the commission of the offense, make complaint, that fact could be considered by the jury as original evidence. Or if considerable time elapsed before the complaint was made, if satisfactory explanation was offered for the delay, the person to whom complaint was made was permitted to testify; and the fact of the complaint having been made, and the explanation of the delay in making the complaint, were to be considered by the jury under proper...