State v. King
| Decision Date | 24 November 1923 |
| Citation | 122 A. 578 |
| Parties | STATE v. KING. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Exceptions and appeal from Supreme Judicial Court, Somerset County, at Law.
William King was convicted of attempt to commit a criminal assault, and he appeals and excepts. Exceptions sustained.
Argued before CORNISH, C. J., and HANSON, PHILBROOK, MORRILL, WILSON, and DEASY, JJ.
Pattangall, Locke & Perkins, of Augusta, and Gower & Shumway, of Skowhegan, for appellant.
James H. Thorne, Co. Atty., of Madison, for the State.
The respondent was tried and convicted on an indictment for attempt to commit a criminal assault upon a girl 9 years of age. The case is before this court on appeal from the denial by the presiding justice at nisi prius of a motion for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against the law and evidence; it being contended by respondent's counsel that the evidence did not disclose any attempt to ravish the child, and also upon exceptions to the admission of testimony by the mother of the child in the course of the state's direct evidence giving the details of the statement made to her by the child about a week after the last alleged assault took place.
If the case rested upon the appeal alone, this court would not disturb the verdict. A jury heard the evidence and, believing the story of the little girl, as corroborated by her mother, it may well have found that the respondent not only took indecent liberties with her person, but further attempted to take advantage of her innocence and carnally know her.
It is with reluctance, considering the evidence in the case, that we sustain the exception to the admission of the testimony of the mother giving the details of the girl's statement to her. The respondent, however, has the right to ask that his conviction be obtained in accordance with the established principles of law. Testimony in prosecutions for rape, that shortly after the alleged assault took place the prosecutrix related to a third party the same story in detail which she told on the witness stand, cannot help but have some effect on the minds of a jury. Where the statement is not admissible as a part of the res gestae, nor is within any of the rules permitting hearsay evidence, it is almost inevitable that the admission of such testimony from the third party will prove prejudicial to the rights of the respondent.
The rules governing the admission of statements or complaints of the prosecutrix in cases of rape have received widely varying applications in the different jurisdictions. As one authority prefaces his discussion of the subject, it is as perplexing as any in the law of evidence. Much of the confusion seemingly has arisen from a failure to appreciate the principles underlying the rules governing the admission of this class of evidence.
A discussion of these principles may be found in Chamberlayne on Law of Evidence, vol. 4, §§ 3034-3043; Wigmore on Evidence, vol. 2, §§ 1134-1140, vol. 3, § 1760; 22 R. C. L pp. 1212-1217; 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 858, note; Greenleaf on Ev. (16th Ed.) vol. 1, § 496b; vol. 3, § 213; 33 Cyc. 1462.
There is practical' unanimity of opinion that the fact that such a complaint was made is always admissible as a part of the state's evidence in chief, if the prosecutrix takes the stand, In corroboration of her evidence, but not the details of the complaint. It is, of course, also agreed that where the complaint is made under such circumstances as to bring it within the rule of res gestae that the details of the complaint may be admitted under that rule and as evidence of the facts related. The weight of authority also seems to support the rule that, where the prosecutrix has taken the stand and her testimony has been impeached, evidence of the details of her prior statement of what occurred maybe received in corroboration of her testimony given on the stand, but not as evidence of the facts stated. Greenleaf on Evidence, vol. 2, §. 4696; Chamberlayne on Law of Evidence, supra; State v. Niles, 47 Vt. 82; Com. v. Cleary, 172 Mass. 175, 51 N. E. 746; Com. v. Tucker, 189 Mass. 457, 480, 76 N. E. 127, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1056.
It has been in the application of these rules, however, wherein the confusion has arisen, especially in extending the res gestae rule to include such statements made at varying intervals after the assault took place, and in receiving not only the complaint but the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lizotte
...hearsay rule permits such testimony in proof of the fact that such a declaration was made. The principle was recognized in State v. King, 123 Me. 256, 258, 122 A. 578, and declared in State v. Galloway, Me., 247 A.2d 104 (1-4), 106. See also Annot. 140 A.L.R. 21 section V a and b beginning ......
-
State v. True
...of a complaint, nothing violent had occurred. The details of the complaint are not, however, admissible under this rule. State v. King, 123 Me. 256, 122 A. 578 (1923); accord State v. Walton, Me. 432 A.2d 1275, 1277 (1981); State v. Ranger, 149 Me. 52, 59, 98 A.2d 652, 655 (1953); State v. ......
-
State v. Demerritt
...by the evidence against him. If there is a violation of a constitutional right the respondent is entitled to a discharge. State v. King, 123 Me. 256, 122 A. 578; State v. Beane, 146 Me. 328, 81 A.2d 924; State v. Brown, 142 Me. 16, 45 A.2d In interpreting the Maine Constitution 'law of the ......
-
State v. Newcomb
...apprehended as a truant by a school truant officer and questioned at the police station. In another connection counsel cites State v. King, 123 Me. 256, 122 A. 578, which carries an extended discussion of the admissibility of evidence that a child had complained to a parent or officer of ac......