State v. Hopkins

Citation145 P. 1095,26 Idaho 741
PartiesSTATE, Respondent, v. DANIEL H. HOPKINS, Appellant
Decision Date06 February 1915
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho

ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO COMMIT RAPE-SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE-ALIBI-ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE-WITHDRAWAL OF OBJECTION TO QUESTION.

1. The evidence in this case examined and found to be sufficient to justify the conviction of the defendant of the crime charged.

2. Where the evidence adduced by the state tends to show that a crime was committed during a two weeks' vacation in school at the Christmas holiday season and does not fix the date more definitely than that, and where the defendant relies upon an alibi and produces evidence tending to show his whereabouts from Dec. 24th to Jan. 1st, inclusive, and that he was not at the place where the evidence produced by the state tends to show the crime was committed, but produces no evidence tending to show his whereabouts during the remainder of the two weeks in question, the jury is justified in reaching the conclusion that the alibi relied on was not established.

3. Where there is a substantial conflict in the evidence and the evidence taken as a whole is sufficient to sustain the verdict, the verdict will not be disturbed.

4. Where a party to an action does not object to a question propounded to a witness, or having objected, expressly gives consent that the question may be answered, error cannot be predicated upon the action of the court in admitting the testimony nor upon the refusal of the court to strike out the answer if it is responsive to the question.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Ninth Judicial District for the County of Fremont. Hon. James G. Gwinn, Judge.

The defendant was found guilty of an attempt to commit rape. Judgment affirmed.

Affirmed.

John A Bagley, for Appellant, cites no authorities.

J. H Peterson, Attorney General, E. G. Davis and V. P. Coffin Assistants, for the State.

There being a substantial conflict in the evidence, and the jury having passed upon it, under the well-settled rule of this court, the verdict of the jury will not be disturbed. (State v. Silva, 21 Idaho 247, 120 P. 835; Panhandle Lbr. Co. v. Rancour, 24 Idaho 603, 135 P. 558.)

A conviction of the crime of assault with intent to commit rape will be sustained, even though the prosecutrix be uncorroborated, unless her testimony be impeached as to her previous good character and reputation for truthfulness. This is especially so where the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense are clearly corroborative of the statements of the prosecutrix. (State v. Anderson, 6 Idaho 706, 59 P. 180; People v. Wessel, 98 Cal. 352, 33 P. 216.)

MORGAN, J. Sullivan, C. J., and Budge, J., concur.

OPINION

MORGAN, J.

In this case the appellant was convicted of the crime of assault with intent to commit rape. The trial resulted in a verdict of guilty, upon which a judgment of conviction was made and entered, from which judgment and from an order of the court denying his motion for a new trial this appeal was taken.

In his brief upon appeal and in his oral argument counsel for the appellant relies upon four assignments of error, in substance as follows:

First: That the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict and judgment;

Second: That the verdict was rendered by the jury on account of bias and prejudice against this class of cases and the additional reason that the court permitted, over the objection of the appellant, the respondent to show that the appellant had been found guilty of the offense charged in this case by a tribunal of the church of which he was a member;

Third: That the appellant proved a full and complete alibi;

Fourth: That there is no evidence to corroborate the prosecutrix and she is contradicted by the facts and circumstances proved by the appellant.

The first, third and fourth assignments of error and the first portion of the second may be considered together as denying the sufficiency of the evidence. The latter portion of the second assignment will be considered separately as relating to the admissibility of evidence.

We will first consider the evidence which affects the alibi relied upon by the appellant. The testimony of the prosecutrix shows that she attended school during the school year of 1911 and 1912; that there was a vacation, or holiday period, at Christmas time of two weeks; that the crime of which the appellant was convicted was committed during this vacation period, at a haystack in appellant's field some distance from the house. The prosecutrix further testified that she was unable to give the exact date of the assault upon her nor to fix the time any closer than that it occurred at about noon on a day during this two weeks' vacation in school.

The defendant testified as to his whereabouts from the 24th of December, 1911, to and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • State v. Lundhigh
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 30 Abril 1917
    ......M. Booth and R. W. Adair, for. Respondent. . . The. amount or character of evidence necessary to create a. reasonable doubt is solely for the jury to determine, and. where the evidence as a whole is sufficient, the verdict will. not be disturbed. ( State v. Hopkins, 26 Idaho 741,. 145 P. 1095; State v. Grant, 26 Idaho 189, 140 P. 959; State v. Webb, 6 Idaho 428, 55 P. 892.). . . Where. the evidence is conflicting on a material issue, a new trial. will not be granted. ( State v. Downing, 23 Idaho. 540, 130 P. 461; State v. Collett & ......
  • State v. Cacavas
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 3 Mayo 1935
    ...206 P. 1045; Bodenhamer v. Pacific Fruit & P. Co., 50 Idaho 248, 295 P. 243; State v. Driskill, 26 Idaho 738, 145 P. 1095; State v. Hopkins, 26 Idaho 741, 145 P. 1095; State v. Bush, 50 Idaho 166, 295 P. 432; v. Keyser, 38 Idaho 57, 219 P. 775; Webster v. McCullough, 45 Idaho 604, 264 P. 38......
  • State v. McLennan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 3 Enero 1925
    ...... disturbed. ( State v. Shepard, 39 Idaho 666, 229 P. 87; State v. Bouchard, 27 Idaho 500, 149 P. 464;. State v. Nesbit, 4 Idaho 548, 43 P. 66; State v. Silva, 21 Idaho 247, 120 P. 835; State v. Downing, 23 Idaho 540, 130 P. 461; State v. Hopkins, 26 Idaho 741, 145 P. 1095.). . . Also. see State v. Black, 36 Idaho 27, 208 P. 851, on. circumstantial proof of corpus delicti. . . The. instruction on motive, as asked, was properly refused. ( Bonner v. State, 107 Ala. 97, 18 So. 226;. Brunson v. State, 124 ......
  • State v. Bouchard
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 10 Junio 1915
    ...v. Nesbit, 4 Idaho 548, 43 P. 66; State v. Silva, 21 Idaho 247, 120 P. 835; State v. Downing, 23 Idaho 540, 130 P. 461; State v. Hopkins, 26 Idaho 741, 145 P. 1095, approved and 9. Held, that the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial. APPEAL from the District Court of the Eight......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT