Redding v. State, 37885

• Decision Date: 11 June 1951
• Docket Number: No. 37885,37885
• Citation: 53 So.2d 7,211 Miss. 855
• Parties: REDDING v. STATE.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 7

53 So.2d 7

211 Miss. 855

REDDING v. STATE.

No. 37885.

Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division A.

June 11, 1951.

White & White, Bidwell Adam, Gulfport, for appellant.

J. P. Coleman, Atty. Gen., Joe T. Patterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

KYLE, Justice.

The appellant, Arthur E. Redding, was convicted of rape in the circuit court of Harrison County, and from the judgment of the court sentencing him to life imprisonment in the state penitentiary he appeals to this Court.

The prosecutrix was 23 years of age and had been married twice, and had two children. She was divorced from her first husband and was separated from her second husband. The crime was alleged to have been committed on March 16, 1950. According to the testimony of both the prosecutrix and the defendant the parties had taken an automobile drive together on that date after 10:00 o'clock p. m. A few minutes after 12:00 o'clock the prosecutrix entered the Greyhound Bus Station in the City of Gulfport and requested one of the yound ladies employed at the bus station to call the police station for her. Two policemen arrived at the bus station within a few minutes and the prosecutrix accompanied them back to the police station. The police officers testified that the prosecutrix told them that she had been raped. One of the officers testified that she was in a highly nervous condition when he first saw her, that she was crying and looked like she was suffering from a shock, that her clothes were torn and that there were particles of sand on her neck and shoulders, and that she appeared to be in a depressed state of mind; that she told him after they arrived at the police station that she had been raped. The other officer testified that when he first saw her at the bus station she was in a nervous condition and was crying, and appeared to be very much excited.

The State's case rests mainly upon the testimony of the prosecuting witness, but her testimony is supported by the testimony of the two officers who testified as to the complaint made to them by the prosecutrix and as to her physical condition at the time she made the complaint, and the testimony of the doctor who examined her on the following day and who testified that he found certain bruises on her body at that time.

The appellant testified in his own behalf, and his defense was that there had been no rape for the reason that the prosecutrix had voluntarily consented to have sexual intercourse with him and that no threats or force had been used by him at the time he had sexual intercourse with her.

The appellant's attorneys, in their assignment of errors and in their briefs, contend that the court erred in overruling the motion made by the defendant at the conclusion of the State's testimony for a directed verdict on the ground that the evidence showed that no threats or force had been used and that no sufficient proof had been offered to show that the prosecutrix had offered any resistance. The appellant's attorneys also assign as error the refusal of the court to grant the defendant's request for a peremptory instruction to find the defendant not guilty. We think that there was sufficient evidence to justify the action of the court in overruling the defendant's motion for a directed verdict and in refusing to grant the peremptory instruction requested by the defendant.

The appellant also complains of errors alleged to have been committed by the court in granting certain instructions to the State and in refusing to grant Instruction No. 10 requested by the defendant. But, in as much as this case must be reversed on other grounds, we do not deem it necessary to discuss the objections made to the instructions granted to the State; and the court committed no error in refusing to grant Instruction No. 10 requested by the defendant.

Appellant's main argument for reversal of the judgment of the lower court and the granting of a new trial is based upon the admission of the testimony of the two police officers showing the details of the statement made by the prosecutrix to them as to the manner in which the crime had been committed.

The record shows that the prosecutrix left the appellant's automobile in front of the Greyhound Bus Station in the City of Gulfport a few minutes after 12 o'clock and went into the bus station and requested a young lady employed in the bus station to call the police. The appellant came into the bus station a few minutes later and drank a cup of coffee. After the police officers arrived the prosecutrix, who had been in the rest room while the telephone call was being placed, accompanied them back to the police station, where she immediately made complaint to one of the officers that she had been raped.

The record shows, as a part of the testimony of Officer Leon Button, the following questions and answers:

'Q. At the time when she made this report to you what did she say, if anything, with reference to her trying to get out of the car? Defendant objects, because counsel going into details. Objection Sustained.

'Q. State to the court and the jury what she said to you if she made any effort or not to get out of the car, or what happened after that time? A. She reported to me that she told the party she was going to jump out of the automobile if he did not take her back to town.

'Defendant objects--By the Court: Just tell the gist of the report she made to you. A. She told me she had been raped.

'By Counsel for the State: Q. Did she tell you what happened immediately before she was raped? Defendant Objects--Objection Overruled. A. She jumped out of the automobile and was in a subconscious condition. Defendant objects, because going into details. Objection Overruled.

'Q. Did she tell you where she was and what her condition was at the time when she was raped? A. Yes sir.

'Q. What did she say her condition was at the time when she was raped? Defendant objects, because hearsay. Objection sustained.

'Q. Did she tell you where she was at the time she became conscious? A. Yes sir.

'Q. Where was she? A. In the automobile.

'Q. What did she tell you that she was doing at that time? Defendant objects--Objection Sustained.'

The record also shows that while the other police officer, Harvey Sheffield, was testifying as a witness, for the State, he was permitted to state to the jury that while the prosecutrix did not know the name of the defendant she described him to the two police officers and told them where he was sitting in the bus station at the time the officers arrived at the bus station; and, over the objection of the defendant's attorneys, the witness was permitted to state further that the prosecutrix told the two police officers that she first saw the defendant that night at the Service Cafe on 28th Avenue and 18th Street, that she had missed her bus uptown, and that Billy Gartman had told her that Arthur Redding was going to town and she could ride with him; that she started to town with the defendant, and that the defendant 'made her go with him' after they got to town.

The record shows that the defendant's attorney interposed many objections to the testimony of the two police officers while they were being interrogated by the district attorney concerning the particulars of the alleged crime related to them by the prosecutrix. Some of these objections were sustained by the court, but the witnesses were nevertheless permitted to repeat many of the particulars related to them by the prosecutrix at the time she made her complaint.

It has been repeatedly held by this Court that upon the trial of an indictment for rape the State may show that the prosecutrix made complaint of her injury shortly after the assault upon her, but may not show the particulars stated by her, nor that she charged the defendant with the wrong. Ashford v. State, 81 Miss. 414, 33 So. 174; Anderson v. State, 82...