King v. State
| Decision Date | 04 May 1962 |
| Parties | , 210 Tenn. 150 Loyd D. KING v. STATE of Tennessee. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
James T. Sanderson, Memphis, for plaintiff in error.
George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen., Thomas E. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, for State.
The plaintiff-in-error, defendant, Loyd D. King, was indicted, tried and convicted for rape and was given a prison sentence of ten years. He has appealed to this Court and assigned errors that (1) there is no evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury and that the verdict of the jury is against and contrary to the weight and preponderance of the evidence; (2) the law and evidence preponderate against the verdict of the jury and the verdict of the jury is contrary to both the law and the evidence; and (3) that as a matter of law the evidence does not sustain the offense of rape.
The facts are substantially that the defendant stands convicted of the rape of his sister-in-law who with her husband and eight children lived next door to him on a farm owned by Nealy Robley.
On the morning of July 29, 1961, the wife of the defendant and the sister of the prosecutrix left her home to visit her mother in Arkansas for the week-end, leaving their three children in the care and custody of her said sister.
Shortly after Mrs. King departed her home to visit her mother in Arkansas, the defendant, Loyd King, and his brother-in-law, husband of the prosecutrix, left their homes on this Saturday morning at about 8:30 or 9:00 o'clock to engage in 'a little drinking spree' about the county.
At about 3:30 o'clock on the following morning, that is on Sunday morning, July 30, 1961, the two men parted company with the understanding that the defendant would go get one of their buddies 'Leb Doolen' and return with him to a residence in Madison County, Tennessee, where his companion remained with a woman, whose name does not appear in the record.
The defendant instead of locating Leb Doolen went directly to the home of the prosecutrix which, as aforesaid, was located next to his own home. According to the best evidence in the record, upon arrival he sounded the horn of his automobile and awakened her. She was in her home with her eight children and the three children belonging to her sister and the defendant. When she came to the front porch of her home the defendant informed her that her husband would be in serious trouble unless she went with him to get him and bring him home. Upon receiving this information she went back into her house, awakened her twelve year old daughter, told her of the situation and stated that she was going with L. D., the defendant, after her Daddy, and that she would not be gone over thirty (30) minutes. The daughter was advised to lock the door after the mother left.
She then got in the automobile, clothed in her pajamas and a housecoat or a duster, and the two of them proceeded along Neely Station Road to a dirt road where the defendant stopped the car. The defendant then told her that her husband was enjoying the company of a woman and that they might as well do the same thing. She refused the offer and tried to get out of the car by opening the right front door. The defendant grabbed the door, closed it and then, according to her testimony, 'he (defendant) kept pushing at me, I tried to get away, I couldn't, he overpowered me, he held me.' 'I pushed at him' to try and stop him for about ten (10) minutes. 'I told him when he started if he would turn me loose then I would forget about it, if he didn't I was going to call the law when I got up to Mr. Robley's'. (Their landlord).
The prosecutrix further testified that the defendant pushed her back on the seat, held her with his arms and the weight of his whole body and during the course of the struggle he pulled off part of her clothing and tore or damaged her panties, during all of which time she 'begged and pleaded with him to turn me loose'.
She testified that she weighed only about ninety (90) pounds, and that the defendant weighed about one hundred and ninety (190) pounds. She said that she resisted the efforts of the defendant and scratched his face when her hand was free. She did not scream or cry out in order to attract attention. She admitted that defendant did not threaten her or cause her to believe that he might hurt her if she failed to submit, and further that she was not afraid of the defendant. There is no reason given in the record why the prosecutrix should be afraid of the defendant, but to the contrary the evidence shows that they were in-laws and were on friendly terms prior to this occasion.
On cross-examination the prosecutrix was asked:
'
'
The defendant returned the prosecutrix to her home, put her out of the car and then returned to the company of her husband, his brother-in-law, and started drinking again with him and his female companion. They remained together until about 4:00 o'clock P.M. on the same date when the sheriff of Madison County or one of his deputies arrested the defendant upon a charge of rape according to a warrant which had been previously sworn out.
Mrs. Nealy Robley testified that about 6:00 o'clock A.M. on the day in question the oldest daughter of the prosecutrix came to her house and gave her certain information which caused her to go to her home where she found her crying and very disturbed and almost hysterical. She then reported to Mrs. Robley what had occurred between her and the defendant. After some conversation, Mrs. Robley put her in her automobile and took her to her home in order that she might tell Mr. Robley what had occurred. When she arrived at the Robley home she was crying and so upset for a few minutes that she could not relate to Mr. Robley what had occurred. Upon questions from him she told him in detail exactly the same story that she had told to Mrs. Robley. The officers were called and arrived at the Robley home at about 9:00 o'clock and she repeated her story to them in the presence of both Mr. and Mrs. Robley and they say that she told them exactly the same story as she had related to them previously. She was still crying and very upset at this time. She was still upset a day or two later when Mrs. Robley carried her to her family physician. She also told the Robleys about her torn clothing and exhibited to them the torn dress. These witnesses did not observe any bruises on her body, but she did tell them that her arm was hurting at the point where it had been held across the steering wheel by the defendant. She also said that her side was hurting her.
The two officers who went to the home of Mr. Robley both testified and they corroborate the testimony given by Mr. and Mrs. Robley.
The husband of the prosecutrix testified that he and the defendant were together on the day in question and that both of them were drinking heavily and were drunk. He said that the defendant left him at about 3:00 A.M. at a road house in Madison County and said that he was going to pick up one of their buddies. The defendant returned about three hours later and started drinking again, and reported that he couldn't located the buddy. This witness said that he fled the scene when the officers arrived to arrest ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Webster v. State
...Tenn. 502, 327 S.W.2d 308; Farmer v. State, 208 Tenn. 75, 343 S.W.2d 895; White v. State, 210 Tenn. 78, 356 S.W.2d 411; King v. State, 210 Tenn. 150, 357 S.W.2d 42; Staggs v. State, 210 Tenn. 175, 357 S.W.2d 52; Rowan v. State, 212 Tenn. 224, 369 S.W.2d 543; Lester v. State, 212 Tenn. 338, ......
-
State v. Kendricks
...also, Carroll v. State, 212 Tenn. 464, 370 S.W.2d 523 (1963) (statement by victim to police soon after occurrence); King v. State, 210 Tenn. 150, 357 S.W.2d 42 (Tenn.1962) (statement by victim to police within hours of As stated, the Court of Criminal Appeals found that even though the comp......
-
Chadwick v. State
...Tenn. 502, 327 S.W.2d 308; Farmer v. State, 208 Tenn. 75, 343 S.W.2d 895; White v. State, 210 Tenn. 78, 356 S.W.2d 411; King v. State, 210 Tenn. 150, 357 S.W.2d 42; Staggs v. State, 210 Tenn. 175, 357 S.W.2d 52; Rowan v. State, 212 Tenn. 224, 369 S.W.2d 543; Lester v. State, 212 Tenn. 338, ......
-
People v. Yanik
...337 A.2d 804; State v. Sudduth, 52 S.C. 488, 490-492, 30 S.E. 408; State v. Thompson, 71 S.D. 319, 333, 24 N.W.2d 10; King v. State, 210 Tenn. 150, 357 S.W.2d 42; State v. Horne, 12 Utah 2d 162, 166, 364 P.2d 109; State v. Roberts, 91 Utah 117, 124-125, 63 P.2d 584; Barnett v. Commonwealth,......
-
§ 33.04 Rape: Actus Reus
...State v. Rusk, 424 A.2d 720, 733 (Md. 1981) (Cole, J., dissenting).[71] People v. Dohring, 59 N.Y. 374, 386 (1874). [72] King v. State, 357 S.W.2d 42, 45 (Tenn. 1962).[73] People v. Barnes, 721 P.2d 110, 122 (Cal. 1986).[74] E.g., if the perpetrator says, "I wouldn't resist if I were you."[......
-
§33.04 RAPE: ACTUS REUS
...v. Rusk, 424 A.2d 720, 733 (Md. 1981) (Cole, J., dissenting).[71] . People v. Dohring, 59 N.Y. 374, 386 (1874).[72] . King v. State, 357 S.W.2d 42, 45 (Tenn. 1962).[73] . People v. Barnes, 721 P.2d 110, 122 (Cal. 1986).[74] . E.g., if the perpetrator says, "I wouldn't resist if I were you."......
-
TABLE OF CASES
...369 King v. Commonwealth, 368 S.E.2d 704 (Va. Ct. App. 1988), 497 King v. Commonwealth, 513 S.W.3d 919 (Ky. 2017), 306 King v. State, 357 S.W.2d 42 (Tenn. 1962), 551 King v. State, 505 So. 2d 403 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987), 487 King, State v., 235 P.3d 240 (Ariz. 2010), 212 Kinney, People v., 6......