Etheridge v. State, 3 Div. 57
| Decision Date | 14 September 1971 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 57 |
| Citation | 252 So.2d 655,47 Ala.App. 233 |
| Parties | Roland ETHERIDGE, alias v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
J. B. Nix, Jr., Evergreen, W. C. Owens, Monroeville, for appellant.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Walter S. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is an appeal from a conviction for rape. Punishment was fixed at ten years in the penitentiary.
The testimony of the prosecuting witness, Patsy Tolen Bush, tended to show she was raped by the defendant and one C. J. House, Jr., on January 9, 1970.
The defendant testified at the trial that he had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, but that it was with her consent. He admitted making, but denied the truthfulness of a written statement made by him to an officer of the law the day following the alleged offense. In this statement he said he and House pushed the prosecutrix to the ground; that defendant removed her jeans and underclothing; that she screamed when House started to rape her, but that defendant was holding her arm and told her to hush and be quiet, and House slapped her. Both pre-Miranda and Miranda requirements as to voluntariness of the statement were fully complied with before its introduction. (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694.)
Several photographs showing scratches on the prosecutrix's face, neck, arms, shoulders, buttocks and thighs, as well as a photograph of the place where the alleged offense was said to have occurred, were introduced in evidence.
Dr. Cecil E. Price testified he was called to the hospital to examine the prosecutrix; that, with the exception of the breast area, she was covered with scratches which appeared to have been made by briars or a thorny bush, and that adherent to the body around the buttocks and into the groin area was a bunch of dead or rotten leaves; that an examination of the vagina showed that she had had sexual intercourse within the past twenty-four hours. The prosecutrix was the mother of a ten month's old illegitimate child, hence there was no question of previous virginity.
The evidence presented questions for the jury's determination and was sufficient if believed to the required degree to sustain the conviction. The defendant's motion to exclude the state's evidence and the requested affirmative charge were properly denied.
The motion for new trial was not timely filed in the trial court and is not presented here.
The state's proof shows that upon returning to her home the prosecutrix told her mother that the defendant and House had raped her.
The fact that complaint was made by the prosecutrix is admissible. But on direct examination such testimony is limited to the fact of the complaint. The details of the occurrence, including the identity of the person...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lawson v. State
...This is especially so in light of the fact that appellant admitted the intercourse but claimed it was by consent. Etheridge v. State, 47 Ala.App. 233, 252 So.2d 655 (1971). D Lastly, the appellant asserts that the district attorney improperly stated in his rebuttal " 'not to worry about the......
-
Romine v. State
...(Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 369 So.2d 854 (Ala.1979); Thompson v. State, 53 Ala.App. 484, 301 So.2d 248 (1974); Etheridge v. State, 47 Ala.App. 233, 252 So.2d 655 (1971); Smith v. State, 40 Ala.App. 393, 114 So.2d 295 The substance of the note was the implication of the defendant's presenc......
-
Fisher v. State
...and identity of the person accused. Supreme Court Rule 45, appendix, Title 7, Code of Alabama 1940. Also see: Etheridge v. State, 47 Ala.App. 233, 252 So.2d 655 (1971). Cox v. State, 280 Ala. 318, 193 So.2d 759 (1967) 'There are two cases, at least, where details of the complaint may be pro......
-
Thompson v. State
...said to be prejudicially erroneous in light of the appellant's own testimony. Hall v. State, 248 Ala. 33, 26 So.2d 566; Etheridge v. State, 47 Ala.App. 233, 252 So.2d 655. As is our statutory duty, we have carefully searched the record in this cause and find no error therein. The judgment i......