Posey v. State

• Decision Date: 09 February 1905
• Parties: POSEY v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

38 So. 1019

143 Ala. 54

POSEY v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 9, 1905

Appeal from Circuit Court, Shelby County; A. H. Alston, Judge.

Grant Posey was convicted of rape, and he appeals. Reversed.

In its general charge the court directed the jury that: "The force need not be actual physical force. It is sufficient if it was a constructive force, such as duress or being put in fear." The defendant excepted to such part of the general charge, and also to the refusal of the court to give the following written charges requested by him: "(1) The court charges the jury that there is no evidence in this case which would constitute constructive force, and they must believe from the evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant had intercourse with Mary Posey at the time testified by her, and that he accomplished such act by physical force, before they can find him guilty; and if you have a reasonable doubt from the evidence as to this fact you should give the defendant the benefit of said doubt, and find him not guilty. (2) The court charges the jury that it is their duty to acquit the defendant unless they are convinced by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that the defendant, by physical force, ravished Mary Posey at the time testified to by her. (3) The court charges the jury unless they believe from the evidence that the woman Mary Posey resisted the defendant in his attempt to ravish her--that is, if they believe from the evidence he was so attempting--they should find the defendant not guilty. (4) I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that you and each one of you must be convinced by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had sexual intercourse with Mary Posey, and that said act was committed by force, before you can find the defendant guilty; and if, after considering all the evidence, you have reasonable doubt in your minds as to said matter, you should give the defendant the benefit of said doubt, and find him not guilty."

McMillan & Haynes, for appellant.

Massey Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.

TYSON J.

In prosecutions for rape it has been frequently decided by this court that the state may show in corroboration of the testimony of the assaulted female that she, shortly after the outrage upon her, made complaint of such occurrence to her father or mother, but such testimony is confined to the bare fact of complaint, and details of the occurrence or the identity of the person accused is not admissible. Oakley v. State, 135 Ala. 15, 33 So. 23; s. c., 135 Ala. 29, 33 So. 693; Bray v. State, 131...