State v. Garrett
| Decision Date | 14 May 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 57385,No. 2,57385,2 |
| Citation | 494 S.W.2d 336 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Zebedee GARRETT, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Daniel P. Card II, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Wilson Gray, St. Louis, for appellant.
A jury found defendant guilty of forcible rape in violation of § 559.260, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.R., and assessed his punishment at twenty years confinement. He appealed prior to January 1, 1972, and appellate jurisdiction is in this court.
On appeal, defendant contends primarily that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the conviction and judgment entered thereon. In this connection, it is our duty to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state.
The record reflects that defendant and the prosecutrix were of the same race, close in age and residents of the same general area of St. Louis. She testified that her parents had moved from the city about a month prior to the alleged offense, and that she had rented an apartment at that time to finish her last year of college at an institution in the city. On the evening of May 28, 1971, she had a bachelorette party at her residence for a friend, scheduled to be married, and about fifteen girls attended. She was dressed in a sweat shirt and cut-off Levis. One friend planned to stay with her that night, and she walked with another to where the latter's car was parked a half block away on Kingshighway. It was then approximately 1:30 A.M. As she started to return she saw defendant standing in front of her residence. She paused to see what he was doing, and when he yelled 'Hey you' she started to walk in the wrong direction. When he followed, she ran but was caught approximately another half block away. He grabbed her by the arm and asked why she was running. When she said to get away from him, 'He told (her) to shut up and be quiet and you won't get hurt--just to come on.' She described his tone of voice as menacing. As they entered an alley, she described their movement by saying 'he was pulling' and 'I was pulling back--just dragging.' When they arrived at a gangway by a garage off the alley, he told her to remove her clothing. When she didn't, he grabbed her shoulder and forced her to the ground. He pulled the sweat shirt off over her head, unsnapped her jeans and told her to 'get out of them.' He then had intercourse with her. Her explanation for not striking or physically attacking him was, 'I was under the impression that it wouldn't do any good.' She further said, 'I was always under the impression that people who got raped got beat up or killed or something . . ..' For that reason, she tried to avoid making defendant mad. After she was allowed to dress, she started one way and defendant another. However, a moment later: Finally, '. . . he said, 'O.K. we're going back' and I said, No, leave me alone, please * * * he said, 'No, come on' and he took me back to the same place.' In the hope that she could get back to her friend, she tried to convince him to go to her apartment; but, 'he told me to shut up * * * and he pushed me down on the ground again.' After another act of intercourse, she was allowed to leave. Her friend, at the apartment, testified that when prosecutrix returned she was hysterical and said she had been raped. They called a friend, who immediately took her to a hospital where she arrived at 3:01 A.M. The examination confirmed that there had been intercourse, and spermatozoa was found on her clothing. She also had cuts and scratches on her back. Two days later she identified defendant in a lineup at a police station.
Defendant testified and denied having intercourse with the prosecutrix. He admitted his presence near her residence at the time, but explained that he was returning to his home from a church service several blocks away; that she (the victim) came running out of an alley crying and told him 'her stepfather had just jumped on her'; that he had seen her at a grocery store and talked with her once while she was waiting on a bus; that he gave her $5.00 to take a taxi to a friend's home to get away; and, notwithstanding the existing emergency, they made a date to attend a movie the next evening.
In response, prosecutrix testified that the events related by defendant were false; that she had never seen him until the rape in question; and, that she never had a stepfather since her natural parents were alive and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Koonce
...Resistance never comes into play where a threat (constructive force) is employed. State v. Neal, 484 S.W.2d 270 (Mo.1972); State v. Garrett, 494 S.W.2d 336 (Mo.1973); State v. Cunningham, 100 Mo. 382, 12 S.W. 376, 378 (1889); Bishop, Criminal Law § 1125 (7th ed.); Mo. Bar Committee Comments......
-
State v. Harris, 61674
...victim was sufficient to sustain a conviction, and any uncertainties therein were matters for the jury's resolution. State v. Garrett, 494 S.W.2d 336, 337-38 (Mo.1973), State v. Davis, 497 S.W.2d 204, 207 (Mo.App.1973). Corroboration is not mandated unless the victim's testimony is so contr......
-
State v. Jackson
...by force against the will of the woman must be shown.” State v. Holland, 534 S.W.2d 258, 264 (Mo.App.1976) (citing State v. Garrett, 494 S.W.2d 336, 338 (Mo.1973)). In Holland, although the defendant argued that evidence concerning the victim's state of virginity prior to the rape was immat......
-
State v. Alderman
...was enough to sustain the conviction and judgment entered thereon, we test it in the light most favorable to the state. State v. Garrett, 494 S.W.2d 336, 337(1) (Mo.1973). In such a light it suffices to say that on May 22, 1972, defendant did break and escape from the Greene County jail whi......