State v. Bayes
| Decision Date | 26 January 1916 |
| Docket Number | 2828 |
| Citation | 47 Utah 474,155 P. 335 |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. BAYES |
Appeal from District Court, Salt Lake County; Hon. M. L. Ritchie Judge.
A Bayes was convicted of an offense, and he appeals.
AFFIRMED.
S. A King and E. G. Palmer, for appellant.
A. R. Barnes, Atty Gen., and E. V. Higgins and G. A. Iverson, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
The appellant was convicted in the district court of Salt Lake County of the offense of having had carnal knowledge of a female under the age of eighteen years and over the age of thirteen years, which, under our statute, is a felony. He appeals from the judgment.
His counsel have assigned and argued errors in the following particulars: (1) That the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment; (2) that the court erred in giving one of the instructions to the jury; and (3) that it erred in the admission and exclusion of evidence.
Counsel vigorously contend that the evidence produced by the state is insufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court based thereon. The contention is made that, in view that the prosecutrix was the only witness who testified to the act of sexual intercourse, and that for various reasons which are pointed out her statements are wholly unreliable, therefore the evidence is insufficient, as before stated. Among other circumstances which, it is alleged, show the unreliability of the testimony of the prosecutrix, counsel point to the fact that she, at the trial, was positive that the sexual act complained of occurred on Wednesday, the 10th day of January, 1914, while in fact that date did not fall upon a Wednesday but fell upon a Saturday. They insist that the truth, therefore, is that, if the sexual act occurred on the Wednesday referred to, then it occurred on the 7th day of January, and not on the 10th, and that, if it occurred on the 10th, then it took place on Saturday, and not on Wednesday. It could subserve no useful purpose for us to set forth the evidence adduced at the trial, even in substance. It must suffice to say that the record discloses that the prosecutrix, who at the time was between 16 and 17 years of age, in positive terms testified that the appellant had sexual intercourse with her on the date aforesaid, and that he denies such intercourse on that date, or on any other date.
It also appears from the record that counsel for appellant moved for a new trial, in which motion it was stated that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury. The trial court, in an oral opinion which is made a part of the record, reviewed the evidence at length, and therefore carefully considered that question. From that opinion it is apparent that the trial court was satisfied that the jury upon the evidence, were justified in finding that the evidence established appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court, in that opinion, points out some inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecutrix; but he likewise points out some in the testimony of the appellant. The question of credibility arising from those inconsistencies was for the jury. We have already held that, where the prosecutrix is not an accomplice, her testimony alone, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to sustain a finding that the sexual act occurred. State v. Reese, 43 Utah 447, 455, 135 P. 270. The fact that that was a bastardy proceeding in no way affects the principle. Nor does the mere fact that the prosecutrix fixed the 10th as being on Wednesday, when in fact it fell upon a Saturday, from a legal point of view, affect the verdict of the jury. The act, if occurred at all, was quite as unlawful on Wednesday, the 7th, as on Saturday, the 10th, of the month. Such a discrepancy might become material in a case where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fulton, 20191
...State v. Wilson, 642 P.2d 394, 395-96 (Utah 1982); State v. Distefano, 70 Utah 586, 595, 262 P. 113, 116 (1927); State v. Bayes, 47 Utah 474, 476-77, 155 P. 335, 335-36 (1916). McNair did not change this case law. Certainly, there are instances in which time must be proven. The obvious exam......
-
State v. Roberts
...upon which reasonable and unprejudiced minds might draw different conclusions, the jury's' findings will not be disturbed. State v. Bayes, 47 Utah 474, 155 P. 335; State v. Karas, 43 Utah 506, 136 P. Under all of the evidence it was a question for the jury whether prosecutrix offered such r......
-
State v. Marcum, 20768
...law, in this jurisdiction, at least, that the act need not be proved on the precise day alleged in the information." State v. Bayes, 47 Utah 474, 478, 155 P. 335, 336 (1916). Also, evidence of abuse on dates other than the dates stated in the indictment was received without objection. If de......
-
State v. Brown
... ... defendant's counsel requested, were substantially covered ... in the court's general charge to the jury. In view of the ... conflict between the prosecutrix and the defendant it was a ... question exclusively for the jury. Her testimony is ... sufficient if believed. State v. Bayes , 47 ... Utah 474, 155 P. 335 ... The ... defendant, however, offered two other requests which covered ... practically the same ground as request No. 6 in different ... language, and it is urged that the court erred in refusing ... those two requests. What we have already said ... ...