State v. Daniel, WD
| Decision Date | 21 February 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 767 S.W.2d 592 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. William V. DANIEL, Appellant. 39784. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Lloyd Koelker, Kansas City, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.
Before MANFORD, P.J., and TURNAGE and LOWENSTEIN, JJ.
William V. Daniel was found guilty by a jury of one count of attempted forcible rape, § 566.030, RSMo 1986, 1 five counts of forcible sodomy, § 566.060 and one count of attempted forcible sodomy, § 566.060. In accordance with the jury verdict the court sentenced Daniel to fifteen years on the rape count and fifteen years on one of the attempted forcible sodomy counts and twenty years on each of the other counts with the sentences ordered to run concurrently.
The court in its judgment mistakenly referred to Count I as forcible rape when in fact it was attempted forcible rape and in Count VI referred to forcible sodomy when in fact it was attempted forcible sodomy and so designated by the jury.
Daniel contends the judgment cannot stand because the testimony of the victim was so contradictory and in conflict that it does not constitute substantial evidence. Affirmed.
The victim testified that she met Daniel at a bar and was driving home alone from the bar when Daniel ran his car into her car. She stated Daniel forced her by threats to go into a cemetery across the street from the accident and committed the sexual crimes there. Daniel testified and admitted performing various sex acts but testified that all of the acts were consensual.
Daniel points to conflict in the evidence between the victim's testimony and other witnesses concerning her contact with Daniel in the bar, and the conduct of Daniel and the victim after the auto accident. Daniel contends that the conflicts require the victim's testimony to be corroborated. Corroboration of the victim is not required unless the victim's testimony is so contradictory or in conflict with physical facts, "surrounding circumstances and common experience, that its validity is thereby rendered doubtful." State v. Harris, 620 S.W.2d 349 (Mo. banc 1981). The conflict between the testimony of the victim and other witnesses does not trigger the application of the corroboration rule.
The only conflict in the victim's testimony to which Daniel points is the fact that there were apparently no scratches on the victim when she had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Loazia, s. 58240
...between the victim's testimony and that of other witnesses does not trigger application of the corroboration rule. State v. Daniel, 767 S.W.2d 592, 593 (Mo.App.1989); State v. Ellis, 710 S.W.2d 378, 382 Further, evidence corroborating the testimony of a complaining witness is only required ......
-
State v. Nelson
...statements and does not apply to inconsistencies between the victim's statements and the statements of other witnesses. State v. Daniel, 767 S.W.2d 592, 593 (Mo.App.1989). Moreover corroboration is not required where the inconsistency or contradiction "bears on a proof not essential to the ......
-
State v. Tomlin
...is rendered doubtful by gross inconsistencies and contradictions. State v. Koonce, 731 S.W.2d 431 (Mo.App.1987) ; State v. Daniel, 767 S.W.2d 592 (Mo.App.1989) [1, 2]. The attorney general urges the abolition of the corroboration rule. The facts of the present case do not require that The i......
-
State v. Sladek, 74230
...between the testimony of the victim and other witnesses does not require application of the corroboration rule. State v. Daniel, 767 S.W.2d 592, 593 (Mo.App.1989). Sladek recognizes the above principles but contends the testimony of the victim did not constitute substantial evidence to supp......