State v. Ladd
| Decision Date | 01 October 1963 |
| Citation | 159 Me. 431,193 A.2d 914 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. Owen LADD. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Jon Lund, City Atty., County of Kennebec, Foahd Saliem, Asst. City Atty., Augusta, for plaintiff.
Lewis Levine, Morton Brody, Waterville, for defendant.
Before WILLIAMSON, C. J., and WEBBER, TAPLEY, SULLIVAN, SIDDALL and MARDEN, JJ.
On appeal. The respondent, Owen Ladd, was indicated by separate indictments for carnal knowledge and sodomy at the February Term, 1963, at Augusta, for the County of Kennebec. By agreement, the cases were tried together. After a verdict of guilty in each case, and before judgment, the respondent filed motions before the presiding Justice moving that new trials be granted. The motions were denied, whereupon the respondent seasonably appealed the rulings of denial of the Law Court.
The only question raised by appeal from the denial of a motion for a new trial in a criminal case is whether, in view of all the testimony, the jury was justified in believing beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent was guilty. State v. McKrackern, 141 Me. 194, 41 A.2d 817.
The prosecutrix was a young girl of the age of 15 years when the alleged crimes were committed. She was living at the home of the respondent and his wife, engaged in assisting in the care of a young grandson. The respondent was 50 years of age. The indictments alleged the offenses to have been committed in June and July of the year 1962. During the alleged commission of the crimes the wife of the respondent was in Massachusetts for various and extended periods of time. The only testimony presented by the State was that of the prosecutrix insofar as those acts were concerned which, if believed by the jury, would constitute the commission of the crimes alleged.
In a case of this nature, where the prosecution must depend largely upon the testimony of the prosecutrix, corroboration is often difficult to obtain. When lacking to any appreciable degree, the testimony must be scrutinized and analyzed with great care. If the testimony is contradicting to a convincing degree, unreasonable or incredible, it does not provide sufficient support for a verdict of guilty. State v. Wheeler, 150 Me. 332, 110 A.2d 578; State v. Robinson, 153 Me. 376, 139 A.2d 596; State v. Field, 157 Me. 71, 170 A.2d 167.
Counsel for the respondent argues (1) that the girl's testimony is incredible and not to be believed because the respondent's physical condition was such that the acts of carnal knowledge and sodomy could not possibly have taken place, particularly as often as the prosecutrix said they did; (2) that her testimony was inconsistent as to dates of the occurrences; and further, that she exhibited much confusion in some portions of her testimony.
The respondent took the stand and offered denial of the accusations. He stressed his physical condition and age as reasons why he was incapable of intercourse which he contends proves the girl's story as untrue and, in addition, gives support to his defense of denial. Mrs. Ladd, wife of the respondent, witnessed, among other things, that her husband was incapable of sexual intercourse. Dr. Craig Morris, a specialist in internal medicine, was called in rebuttal by the State. Dr. Morris testified that the respondent, Mr. Ladd, was his patient whom he saw intermittently over a period of 2 1/2 to 3 years. The last time he saw him professionally was in January of 1963. At the January visit the doctor was asked by Mr. Ladd, in substance, if he could prove that he, Mr. Ladd, was incapable of sexual intercourse. The doctor testified:
The grounds of appeal are based substantially on the premise that because of the respondent's physical...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Desjardins
...is credible and worthy of belief. State v. Devoe, Me., 301 A.2d 541 (1973); State v. Fournier, Me., 267 A.2d 638 (1970); State v. Ladd, 159 Me. 431, 193 A.2d 914 (1963). The defendant's second point of appeal is without merit and the entry will Appeal denied. Judgments affirmed. POMEROY and......
-
State v. McFarland
...by the use of such techniques as it might adopt to resolve inconsistencies in other types of criminal cases. See State v. Ladd, 159 Me. 431, 435, 193 A.2d 914, 916 (1963); State v. Bennett, 158 Me. 109, 111, 179 A.2d 812, 814 (1962). As we stated in State v. Bernatchez, 159 Me. 384, 386, 19......
-
State v. Trask
...a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty as charged. State of Maine v. Viles, Sr., 161 Me. 28, 206 A.2d 539; State of Maine v. Ladd, 159 Me. 431, 432, 193 A.2d 914; State v. Croteau, 158 Me. 360, 361, 184 A.2d 683. And, in determining the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant belie......
-
State v. Beckus
...the respondent does not seek to have us test the verdict under the rule applicable in the usual criminal appeal. In State v. Ladd, 159 Me. 431, at p. 432, 193 A.2d 914, the Court 'The only question raised by appeal from the denial of a motion for a new trial in a criminal case is whether, i......