State v. Conlin

• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: [45 Wash. 479] HADLEY, C.J.
• Citation: State v. Conlin, 45 Wash. 478, 88 P. 932 (Wash. 1907)
• Decision Date: 25 February 1907
• Parties: STATE v. CONLIN.

88 P. 932

45 Wash. 478

STATE v. CONLIN.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 25, 1907

Appeal from Superior Court, Whatcom County; Jeremiah Neterer, Judge.

Frederick W. Conlin was convicted of the rape of a child under the age of 18 years, and he appeals. Affirmed.

D. W Featherkile, for appellant.

Virgil Peringer and George Livesey, for the State.

HADLEY, C.J.

The defendant was charged with the crime of rape, committed upon the person of his own daughter, a child under the age of 18 years. A plea of not guilty was interposed. The cause was tried before a jury, and a verdict of guilty was returned. The court entered judgment that the defendant shall serve a term of 21 years' imprisonment in the state penitentiary and from the judgment he has appealed.

It is assigned that the court erred in denying appellant's motion for judgment, notwithstanding the verdict. This assignment involves the sufficiency of the evidence. It is argued that the story of the prosecuting witness is improbable and uncorroborated. Her testimony was, however direct and positive as to all the essential elements of the offense charged, and, if true, it is sufficient to convict the appellant. In such a case 'this court cannot, without a usurpation of its authority, hold that the evidence is insufficient to warrant a conviction.' State v Fetterly, 33 Wash. 599, 74 P. 810. Within the rule stated in the above case, and also in State v Roller, 30 Wash. 692, 71 P. 718, it is not necessary that there shall be actual corroboration of the prosecutrix in such cases, since there is no statute requiring it. While it is true that certain corroborating circumstances were found in each of those cases, yet the actual rule there declared by the court is such that the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient if the jury find it to be true. Of its truth the jurors shall be the judges and they shall apply the usual necessary and proper tests to determine whether it is true or false. If, however, in the minds of the jury the prosecutrix's testimony in this case needed to be strengthened by corroborating facts and circumstances, we think there were such shown. Appellant admits that he knew that his daughter was pregnant, and that the knowledge thereof came to him two or three weeks prior to his arrest. He says he spoke to her once about it, but she began to cry, and he said nothing more to her about it. He went about his affairs and made no further effort to ascertain from her who was the guilty party. This course of conduct was at least an unusual one for the father of a young daughter who had been so wronged. On the day of his arrest he met his daughter in company with an officer, as they walked along the sidewalk in the city of Bellingham. He knew her physical condition; but as he passed her upon the same sidewalk he did not inquire as to the cause of her presence with the officer. He merely glanced at her, and passed on, saying nothing. After passing them, he met another officer who stopped him and told him that they were taking his daughter to the office...