Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 07 December 1956 |
| Citation | 5 McCanless 11,201 Tenn. 11,296 S.W.2d 832 |
| Parties | , 201 Tenn. 11 Raymond JOHNSON v. STATE of Tennessee. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Frank L. Flynn and H. O. Pollard, Knoxville, for plaintiff in error.
Nat Tipton, Advocate Gen., Nashville, for defendant in error.
The defendant, Raymond Johnson, was convicted for the offense of sodomy with punishment fixed at five years in the State Prison.
At the time of the commission of the alleged offense the defendant, Johnson, was seventeen years of age and his victim was a seven year old boy. The parents of the little boy both worked and he was in charge of his aunt as a baby sitter when the alleged offense was committed.
The little boy testified that the defendant offered him 50cents to permit him to penetrate his rectum and that when he accepted the defendant took him to a thicket and there accomplished his purpose.
A Mrs. Manuel, who lived in the community, testified that she heard voices coming from the direction of where this child said that the incident occurred. She said that she saw defendant come out of this thicket followed by the child, and that the latter seemed to have difficulty in walking. She saw defendant go into a small store, which the records show he owned an interest in, or worked in, come out and hand something to the child.
The child spent some of the money for candy and cakes and the baby sitter made inquiry as to where he got the money to pay for these luxuries. Finally his father came home and the child admitted the source of his income, thereupon his father examined him and found bruised conditions at the point of entry. The child testified that he had been home from fifteen to twenty minutes and he states that he told them of the incident a short time thereafter.
The defendant denied making the assault on the boy, however, his principal insistence is that the prosecution was sponsored by one Hill in revenge for the prosecution of Hill's son by defendant's sister for a similar offense upon her small child.
From the above statement we cannot say that the evidence preponderates in favor of the innocence of the defendant and against his guilt. The little boy seemed to relate a rather straightforward story and he was corroborated by the testimony of the witness Mrs. Manuel.
The defendant insists that it was error for the lower court to allow in evidence the details of his complaint made to his father less than an hour after the occurrence.
It seems that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kendricks
...Derrick's statements to Easley and Swafford, made within an hour of the incident, clearly qualify as timely. Johnson v. State, 201 Tenn. 11, 296 S.W.2d 832 (1956) (statement by victim to father less than an hour after occurrence); see also, Carroll v. State, 212 Tenn. 464, 370 S.W.2d 523 (1......
-
Locke v. Rose, 74-1858
...Tennessee statute to cunnilingus. 2 Section 39-707 had been applied exclusively as proscribing copulation per anum, Johnson v. State, 201 Tenn. 11, 296 S.W.2d 832 (1956), Stephens v. State, Tenn.Cr.App., 489 S.W.2d 542 (1972), and fellatio, Fisher v. State, 197 Tenn. 594, 277 S.W.2d 340 (19......
-
Krause v. Taylor
...it contained all of the evidence offered on the motion for new trial. To the same effect is the more recent case of Johnson v. State, 201 Tenn. 11, 296 S.W.2d 832 (1956). Chief Justice Neil, writing for the Court in Baldwin, summarized the rationale that dictates adherence to the rules requ......
-
State v. Person
...rule in sex crimes, the victim's complaints made within a reasonable time after the occurrence are admissible. Johnson v. State, 201 Tenn. 11, 296 S.W.2d 832 (1956). In the instant case, all the prerequisites of an "excited utterance" are met. Rape is "an occurrence or an event sufficiently......