People v. Deitsch

• Decision Date: 27 December 1923
• Citation: 237 N.Y. 300,142 N.E. 670
• Parties: PEOPLE v. DEITSCH.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

237 N.Y. 300

142 N.E. 670

PEOPLE

v.DEITSCH.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 27, 1923.

Morris Deitsch was convicted of rape in the first degree, and from a judgment of the Appellate Division (205 App. Div. 446,199 N. Y. Supp. 582) reversing the judgment of conviction, the People appeal.

Affirmed.

See, also, 206 App. Div. 790,200 N. Y. Supp. 939.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Guy B. Moore, Dist. Atty., of Buffalo (John J. Kane, of Buffalo, of counsel), for the People.

John J. Brown, of Buffalo, for respondent.

ANDREWS, J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of rape. His conviction was reversed in the Appellate Division, and he was granted a new trial on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence supporting the testimony of the complainant. Penal Law, § 2013. We agree that this result was right, but not, however, for the reason given in the court below.

[1][2] The general rule is that the corroborating testimony should tend to show the material facts necessary to establish the commission of the crime and the identity of the person committing it. People v. Plath, 100 N. Y. 590, 3 N. E. 790,53 Am. Rep. 236. Here the complainant was a child eight years of age. Her physical condition immediately after the alleged assault and the result of a medical examination was sufficient to support her story that a rape had been committed. In addition there was needed corroboration of her statement that the defendant was the guilty party. We have these facts bearing upon the question. The child's father, mother, and grandmother, who lived with her, left the house at 10 minutes to 8 o'clock in the morning. At 8 o'clock she says the defendant forced his way in and committed the crime. An independent witness states that she saw the defendant standingin the street at the gate in front of the house in which the complainant lived a few minutes before 8. This fact was accepted by the jury as true. The defendant, however, both by his own testimony and by the testimony of two other witnesses, falsely, it is found, attempted to establish an alibi. This testimony reflects upon the character of his presence in the street at the time stated, and justifies the inference that it was a guilty presence. Under these circumstances there is sufficient corroboration as to the identity of the criminal. People v. Terwilliger, 74 Hun, 310, 26 N. Y. Supp. 674; affirmed, 142 N. Y. 629,37 N. E. 565;People v. Goffredo, 232 N. Y. 516, 134 N. E. 553;People v. Gorski, 236 N. Y. 673, 142 N. E. 330. The Gorski Case is in point. The deceased was murdered outside of a saloon. The stories of the accomplices charged the defendant with the commission of the crime.

That the crime was committed by some one was admitted. The only corroborating evidence tending to connect Gorski with it was the fact that very shortly after the murder he was seen walking in a direction away from the saloon, and at a distance from it of some 130 feet, with two other men, one of whom was not alleged to have participated in the murder. Gorski denied that he was present at the scene of the crime, and, as in this case, set up a false alibi. We held that the presence of Gorski in the neighborhood falsely denied by him was sufficient corroboration. His denial tended to show that his presence was not innocent. While the statute in regard to the corroboration of accomplices is not identical in language with that now before us, precedents applicable in the one case may well guide us in the other. People v. Terwilliger, supra; People v. O'Farrell, 175 N. Y. 323, 67 N. E. 588.

[3][4][5] We think, however, incompetent testimony damaging to the defendant was admitted over his objection and exception. Immediately after the assault it was shown that the child made complaint to a neighbor. Such...