Hyde v. State
Citation | 221 P. 787,26 Okla.Crim. 69 |
Decision Date | 26 November 1923 |
Docket Number | A-4177. |
Parties | HYDE v. STATE. |
Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 22, 1924.
Syllabus by the Court.
In a prosecution for rape, evidence reviewed, and held sufficient to sustain conviction of rape in the first degree.
Where objection is made to the competency of a witness to testify on the ground of mental unsoundness, it is the province of the trial court to determine the witness' competency, and its decision will not be disturbed unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown by the record.
Incapacity to give legal consent to the commission of an act of carnal intercourse does not necessarily imply incapacity to thereafter correctly and truthfully narrate the facts constituting the commission of the act.
The fact that the state accuses a defendant of rape in having accomplished an act of sexual intercourse with a female who was at the time of unsound mind and incapable of giving legal consent does not per se establish incompetency of such female to testify against the accused.
In a prosecution for rape, where it is alleged that the female was incapable through unsoundness of mind of giving legal consent, after the court has determined that the prosecutrix is competent to testify as a witness, the credibility of the witness immediately becomes a question to be determined by the jury.
Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; Cham Jones, Judge.
Frank Hyde was convicted of rape in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
In the information in this case filed in the district court of Jefferson county on August 6, 1921, Frank Hyde was charged with the crime of rape in the first degree, in that he did in said county, on or about the 3d day of April, 1921, have sexual intercourse with a female, to wit, Floy Parker, then and there not his wife, and then and there being incapable through unsoundness of mind of giving legal consent. Upon his trial the jury found him guilty, and assessed his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of 15 years. From the judgment rendered on the 12th day of September 1921, and a resulting sentence in accordance with the verdict to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of 15 years he appealed by filing in this court on January 28, 1922, a petition in error with case-made.
The first witness for the state, Mary Parker, testified that she had lived in Waurika about 12 years, having moved here from Coalgate; that at the date alleged defendant's home was about a mile from her home; that her daughter, Floy, is not bright, and her mental condition was caused by an attack of spinal meningitis when she was six years old; that during the past three years it was her daughter's habit to visit defendant's wife about once each month; that she usually walked, and defendant brought her home twice in a car, once in January, and again on April 3, 1921; that her daughter also visited Mrs. Hyde in May and June this year; that her daughter, Floy, is now pregnant; that, owing to her physical and mental condition, her daughter, Floy, had never attended school and was blind for one year; that her daughter was not able to remember facts and experiences as they happened, but could remember people that she had met; that her daughter was not in the habit of visiting any one except defendant's wife; that she will be 23 years old the 22d of this September.
The state called as its second witness the prosecutrix, Floy Parker, and after she was sworn counsel for the defendant requested to be allowed to inquire into her mental condition to determine whether she was a competent witness, which was allowed, and the jury excused.
Examined by counsel for the defendant, Floy Parker testified:
Cross-examined by counsel for the state, she stated:
Dr Maupin testified:
"I have been sitting in court during the examination of Floy Parker, and have observed her, and from this observation of her, and from her answers to questions propounded to her, I would say she was of unsound mind."
Dr. Collins testified to the same state of facts, and that in his judgment she was of unsound mind.
Thereupon counsel for the defendant objected to Floy Parker testifying as being incompetent to testify by reason of her mental condition, which objection was overruled, exception allowed, and the jury recalled.
Against the defendant's objection the witness Floy Parker testified:
On cross-examination she stated:
Dr. Ashinhurst testified:
R. J. Parker testified:
Walter Beatty testified:
Mrs. Laura Beatty testified:
At the close of the evidence counsel for defendant demurred to the evidence on the ground that it is insufficient to warrant a conviction,...
To continue reading
Request your trial