State v. Escamilla, 54168
| Decision Date | 19 January 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 54168,54168 |
| Citation | 182 N.W.2d 923 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Ronald Dale ESCAMILLA, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
McCarthy & Hart, Davenport, for appellant.
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Max A. Gors, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Edward N. Wehr, County Atty., Davenport, for appellee.
Defendant Escamilla, charged by county attorney's true information with the crime of rape in violation of section 698.1, Code, 1966, was tried, convicted and sentenced. At the close of the State's evidence, and at the close of all the evidence, the defendant moved for a directed verdict, both motions being overruled, the rulings on said motions being assigned as error. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
As stated above, appellant's sole contention is that there was no corroboration of the prosecuting witness' identification of him as the one who assaulted her and that therefore the required evidence of corroboration was insufficient to submit the case to the jury. The defendant asserts that at best the evidence shows only the opportunity to commit the crime charged, and alleges that evidence of opportunity alone furnishes corroboration only when:
(1) The defendant made or brought about the occasion and himself furnished and created the opportunity which made the crime possible, or
(2) The opportunity was present and the defendant was the only person who could have committed the crime.
The State contends that the matter was properly submitted to the jury as to the sufficiency of the corroboration, relying on the theory that corroborating evidence need only tend to connect the defendant with the crime, and need not conclusively or certainly connect him therewith. The State further asserts when the opportunity is other than a mere business or social opportunity to commit the crime, it may be sufficient corroboration, especially if the defendant helps to bring about the opportunity and when such an opportunity is shown a jury question is generated.
I. This court has considered the general issue of the sufficiency of corroboration in a number of cases, notably State v. Pilcher, 158 N.W.2d 631 (1968). We note at the outset the cautionary view taken by this court in State v. Pilcher, where we said at page 636,
Despite the widely varying factual backgrounds of the many corroboration cases, certain legal principles on the necessity and sufficiency of corroboration of a rape victim's testimony have emerged.
While one may not be convicted of rape upon the testimony of the victim alone, corroborating evidence necessary for conviction need only be such as tends to connect the defendant with the crime. State v. Pilcher, supra, 158 N.W.2d page 636. Our statute, § 782.4, Code, 1966, provides:
'The defendant in a prosecution for rape, * * * cannot be convicted upon the testimony of the person injured, unless she be corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense.'
The above statutory language was considered in State v. Lahmon, 231 Iowa 448, 449, 1 N.W.2d 629, 630, where this court said,
If the other evidence in connection with the testimony of the victim tends to identify and single out the accused as the perpetrator of the crime, its sufficiency is to be passed upon by the jury. State v. Lahmon, supra, 231 Iowa at 450, 1 N.W.2d at 631.
II. Appellant correctly contends that a mere opportunity alone to commit the rape is not in itself sufficient statutory corroboration. It is also true, as this court held in State v. Lahmon, there are many occasions in ordinary business and social relations where men and women are together and an opportunity for the crime is available, but where there is nothing to indicate that the circumstances are other than proper and innocent, such opportunity does not furnish the required corroboration.
However, where the defendant made or brought about the opportunity for the commission of the crime himself, it is a question for the jury whether the corroboration required by the statute has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stevenson, 54617
...only that complainant's testimony be corroborated by evidence tending to connect defendant with the crime. See State v. Escamilla, 182 N.W.2d 923, 924 (Iowa 1971); State v. Pilcher, 158 N.W.2d 631, 636 (Iowa Since defendant questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, ......
-
State v. Smith
...be such as tends to connect the defendant with the crime. State v. Pilcher, 158 N.W.2d 631, 636 (Iowa 1968) and State v. Escamilla, 182 N.W.2d 923, 924 (Iowa 1971). The question of the sufficiency of the corroboration required by this statute is fully discussed in State v. State v. Brown, 1......
-
State v. Grady, 57580
...442. Finally, we have noted that because facts differ so greatly, previous decisions are of small value as precedents. State v. Escamilla, 182 N.W.2d 923, 924 (Iowa 1971); State v. Ladehoff, 255 Iowa 659, 668, 122 N.W.2d 829, 835 With this reference to the applicable law, we turn to the fac......
-
State v. Taylor, 56780
...have committed the offense, then other supportive testimony apart from that of the prosecutrix is not required. See State v. Escamilla, 182 N.W.2d 923, 924 (Iowa 1971); State v. Lahmon, 231 Iowa 448, 452--453, 1 N.W.2d 629 On the other hand, mere opportunity alone does not suffice to supply......