Pearson v. State

• Decision Date: 28 April 1943
• Docket Number: 3.
• Citation: 31 A.2d 624,182 Md. 1
• Parties: PEARSON v. STATE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

31 A.2d 624

182 Md. 1

PEARSON v. STATE.

No. 3.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

April 28, 1943

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Charles W. Woodward and Stedman Prescott, Judges.

Archie Lee Pearson was convicted of rape, and he appeals.

Reversed and new trial awarded

Harold C. Smith, of Rockville, and Paul B. Mules, of Baltimore, for appellant.

Robert E. Clapp, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (William C Walsh, Atty. Gen., and Joseph V. Simpson, State's Atty of Rockville, on the brief), for appellee.

Before SLOAN, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, MARBURY GRASON, MELVIN, and ADAMS, JJ.

MELVIN, Judge.

The appellant, Archie Lee Pearson, was found guilty of rape by a jury in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County and was sentenced to be hanged. He has appealed to this Court for a reversal on the basis of six exceptions taken at the trial. Two of these, the first and the fourth, were 'abandoned', counsel for defendant stated, and reliance placed upon the remaining four. Of these, the third exception, relating to the location of a telephone bell in the home of a witness, Mary Offutt, is so clearly irrelevant and free from reversible error that the trial Court's ruling on that point is affirmed without the necessity of further comment. The other three exceptions present the points upon which the present appeal hinges. These are the admissibility of the photograph mentioned in exception No. 2 and of testimony relating to the bank account and the earnings of the witness, Everett English, as memtioned in Exceptions No. 5 and No. 6.

Before passing upon these exceptions it is to be noted that the record of facts before this Court, and upon which its rulings must be based, is strikingly meagre, weak and inadequate in its presentation of a case involving the life or death of the defendant. On the issue of rape the alleged victim, Mrs. Everett English, claims that she was choked by the defendant and marks left upon her throat. The defendant denies that he laid hands upon her at all. Therefore, the physical appearance of the woman on the morning following the night of the alleged attack was relevant and important, and a photograph, properly verified, of her as of that time would have been clearly admissible in support of the testimony of any witness or witnesses who then saw her. Yet, notwithstanding this obvious relevancy and importance, the photograph that was then taken was not even developed and there is no description in the record of any marks on her as of the Monday morning in question, although there were four eyewitnesses to her condition at that time, namely, her husband, and Rosie Jenkins, in whose home she took refuge and who was the first person who saw her after the alleged attack, Officer Ralph Howard and Officer Earl Stearn.

The woman, herself, in her testimony in chief does not even mention any marks, and it is only when she was recalled in connection with a picture--supposedly the one taken four days later and referred to in the second exception--that she mentions them at all. Officer Stearn in his testimony 'identified', but did not attempt to describe, 'marks or scratches and bruises on her throat', and although he took a photograph of the same on Monday morning he did not develop it and it was not 'available' at the trial. No explanation is given as to why it was not available. He further testified that he took another picture on the following Thursday, which was developed by the witness Jack Berry, and that it was a fair representation of how she looked on Thursday. This was different from her appearance on Monday in that the said marks were not colored on the former day, but had become colored by the latter.

Consequently, there is no testimony whatever in the record of the appearance of the alleged victim of the attack describing any marks or bruises as they may have appeared when she was at the Jenkins home the morning following her experience.

On the main issue the record is also lacking in any medical testimony as to the woman's physical condition or appearance following the alleged attack or any other time, thus leaving her version without support from the one source which is almost invariably found in a case of this character. There is still another important element in the case concerning which the record is notably inadequate, and that is a description of the scene or locale of the alleged attack. The record goes no further than to mention crossroads, where the altercation began, one of which roads went in the direction of the Englishes' home and the other toward the defendant's; 'a dirt road that led by Mr. Clarence Offutt's house', and up which the woman says the defendant forced her to go; a 'field' which she said they crossed and a 'pine thicket' at which they finally arrived.

Just how far altogether it was from the place where the automobile stopped, over the dirt road and across the field to the pine thicket--whether a hundred yards or a mile--is not even indicated in the record, nor any detail or picture, oral or otherwise, given as to the terrain or the route followed.

While these omissions from the record of relevant, important and customary features of testimony is conspicuous in this kind of a case, what the record does disclose in the way of essential facts is likewise surprisingly meagre. The substance of the testimony of the prosecuting witness, Mrs. English, is that she and her husband had made a Sunday evening visit to a tavern. Upon leaving, she first saw the defendant when she came to the side of the automobile, 'an old mail truck', where her husband was sitting. The defendant, whom they had never met before, asked if he could ride with them toward his home, and they agreed. The husband went back into the tavern and purchased three bottles of beer (later mentioned, without contradiction, as being quart bottles) with money provided by the defendant. The truck was stopped at the home of a Mrs. Dunnegan, friends of the Englishes, and the husband and wife went in that house for a stay of about thirty or forty-five minutes, leaving the defendant in the truck. They then resumed their journey homeward. Upon arriving at the crossroads, which was their parting of ways, the husband stopped the truck and told the defendant he would have to get out and go home. Before that, from the time of leaving Dunnegan's, the defendant 'opened conversation about loaning her husband money, but that she would have to get out and take the money.' Finally, 'in order to quiet him', her husband took the $5. When the machine stopped at the crossroads and the defendant got out, he 'started fighting and threw stones at her husband, who retreated up the road.' Just why the latter, instead of retreating, did not remain in his truck and keep on going is not explained. As soon as her husband 'retreated', the witness continued, 'Pearson returned to the car, got into it and put his arm around her.' Quoting from the record the rest of her story, which is in narrative form, is: 'She opened the door, slid out the other side and Pearson immediately followed; then he choked her and threatened her life if she didn't keep quiet; he grabbed her by the arm and forced her to go up a dirt road leading by Mr. Clarence Offutt's house; after going across a field they finally arrived at a pine thicket; Pearson choked her once more in addition to the time shortly after getting out of the car; that in this pine thicket he forcibly and against her will ravished her; that after a considerable period of time, and after she begged and begged him to show her the way back to the road, that he had again ravished her some time before reaching the road; that when they came up to the road she looked for her pocket book and then went up to a colored house occupied by Rosie Jenkins.' When she stopped there she said her clothes 'were badly shattered', that she was completely a 'nervous wreck' and was 'almost hysterical.'

It is to be noted here that there is no corroboration by Rosie Jenkins, her first contact, of these particular points of testimony. She is silent as to Mrs. English's condition upon arrival and as to this goes no further than to testify that Mrs. English was wet and cold, that she had no stockings on, and that she didn't take off anything but her dress. Mrs. English stayed in this house over night until about 8 o'clock next morning, when her husband and the officers arrived.

As to the husband, Everett English, the record shows that 'he testified substantially in the same manner as his wife had done until the truck was stopped at the crossroads when Pearson got out; that upon getting out of the truck he offered Pearson back his $5.00 and told him he must go home that an altercation resulted and he thought that Pearson was going to cut him, and that he could obtain help at the house a short distance by from the road in the direction that the truck had gone; before he reached the house a colored man, Dorsey, caught up with him in an automobile, and he got Dorsey to turn the car around and go in search of his wife. When he got there he could not find her or Pearson, that he looked for them and finally went to several houses before getting a telephone to call the police; then he waited for the police to arrive and then scoured the country in search of his wife and Pearson, but was unable to locate either of them until eight o'clock next morning, when he found his wife at Rosie Jenkins'; that at no time during the conversation with Pearson had he requested the loan of any money and he was in no need of money.' That was all the testimony given by the husband, until recalled to the stand on behalf of the State to testify as to the state of his bank account and his earnings, which are the subject of the fourth and fifth...