State v. Matlock
| Decision Date | 18 March 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 54476,54476 |
| Citation | 660 P.2d 945,233 Kan. 1 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Raymond Louis MATLOCK, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The standard of review on appeal for determining whether evidence is sufficient to support a criminal conviction is: Does the evidence when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution convince the appellate court that a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
2. On the basis of the uncontradicted factual circumstances shown in the record in a criminal prosecution for rape, it is held that no rational factfinder could have believed the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix and found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ed Schneeberger, of Green & Schneeberger, Leavenworth, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Frank E. Kohl, Asst. County Atty., argued the cause, and Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., was with him on the brief for appellee.
This is a direct appeal from a conviction of rape (K.S.A. 21-3502). The complainant was the adopted stepdaughter of defendant, Raymond Louis Matlock. The rape allegedly occurred in April 1979. The charge of rape was not filed in Leavenworth County until July 15, 1980, one year and three months after the alleged rape took place. The defendant denied the charge. At the trial, the only witness called by the State was the complainant, who at that time was twenty-two years of age. The alleged rape took place at the defendant's home in Leavenworth on an evening when there were several members of the family present in the house. The complainant testified that the act occurred in her bedroom on an old creaky bed at a time when the door to her sister's room was open. The defense called four witnesses who testified they were in the house on the night in question. They were the complainant's two sisters, her mother (the defendant's wife), and a young man who was a friend of one of the sisters. All of these witnesses denied that they saw or heard anything that night. The defendant took the stand and unequivocally denied the charge. The jury convicted the defendant and he appealed.
The defendant raises several points on the appeal. The first three points involve the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict of guilty. The defendant states his points as follows: (1) The state failed to establish the corpus delicti of the charge of rape; (2) The uncorroborated testimony of the alleged rape victim, when the complaint is not made until one year and three months after the alleged incident, is insufficient evidence upon which to base a conviction; and (3) The trial court erred in failing to sustain the defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal.
The thrust of the defendant's argument is that a defendant may not be convicted of a charge of rape on the uncorroborated testimony of the alleged victim where there is no other evidence presented to show the fact of the rape itself. He maintains there was no credible evidence presented to demonstrate that the crime actually took place. He argues that the uncorroborated testimony of the alleged rape victim, who first complained about the defendant's alleged misconduct over a year after the alleged crime, is not sufficient to sustain a conviction.
The defendant also maintains that the conviction must have been the result of prejudice arising as a result of several matters arising during the trial. The jury was advised that the defendant was on a federal parole from the Leavenworth Penitentiary. At trial, the prosecutrix testified that the reason she filed charges at this particular time, over a year after the alleged rape occurred, was that her sister was acting strangely. The defendant's objection to this statement was overruled. Also, during closing argument, the prosecutor told the jury that he would not be prosecuting the suit, if he did not believe the prosecutrix's story to be true. Undoubtedly, all of these factors worked to the detriment of the defendant.
The test to be applied to determine the sufficiency of evidence to support a verdict of guilty has been stated many times by this court: Does the evidence when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution convince the appellate court that a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? State v. Carr, 230 Kan. 322, 634 P.2d 1104 (1981); State v. Sanders, 227 Kan. 892, 895, 610 P.2d 633 (1980); State v. Voiles, 226 Kan. 469, Syl. p 6, 601 P.2d 1121 (1979).
At common law, the testimony of the prosecutrix alone was sufficient to sustain a conviction without corroboration. Several states, by statute or court decision, have modified the common-law rule and now require some corroboration in order to sustain a conviction of rape. See 65 Am.Jur.2d, Rape § 96, and the annotation at 60 A.L.R. 1124, where many cases are cited. Kansas has not modified the common law and has consistently held that a conviction of rape can be upheld without corroboration. See State v. Sanders, 227 Kan. 892, 610 P.2d 633; State v. Robinson, 219 Kan. 218, 220, 547 P.2d 335 (1976); State v. Morgan, 207 Kan. 581, 485 P.2d 1371 (1971); State v. Tinkler, 72 Kan. 262, 83 P. 830 (1905).
The appellate courts of several other jurisdictions, which have adopted rules precisely like ours on the sufficiency of evidence and the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix in a rape case, have held that in order to convict on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be clear and convincing, and that where her testimony is so incredible and improbable as to defy belief, the evidence is not sufficient to sustain a conviction. State v. Goodale, 210 Mo. 275, 109 S.W. 9 (1908); Morris v. State, 9 Okl.Cr 241, 131 P. 731 (1913); DeArmond v. State, 285 P.2d 236 (Okl.1955); State v. Burton, 355 Mo. 467, 196 S.W.2d 621 (1946); Blumenthal v. State, 98 Tex.Cr.App. 601, 267 S.W. 727 (1925); State v. Moe, 68 Mont. 552, 219 P. 830 (1923); Ganzel v. State, 185 Wis. 589, 201 N.W. 724 (1925).
We have concluded that the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix in this case was unbelievable to the extent that it was not sufficient to sustain the conviction of the defendant for rape. In reaching this conclusion, we have carefully examined the record and noted the following facts admitted or uncontroverted by the prosecutrix, which tend to cast doubt upon the credibility of her testimony:
(1) The alleged rape occurred on an old creaky bed in the prosecutrix's bedroom, which was in between her two sisters' bedrooms.
(2) The bed was so close to the wall to her sister Treva's room that it would bang against the wall whenever someone moved about on the bed.
(3) The prosecutrix did not cry out when the alleged rape occurred.
(4) The prosecutrix did not clean herself after the attack.
(5) The next...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kettler
...incredible that it must be disregarded. See State v. Brinklow, 288 Kan. 39, 53–54, 200 P.3d 1225 (2009) (identifying State v. Matlock, 233 Kan. 1, 4, 660 P.2d 945 [1983], as “perhaps the only case of its kind in this state where the Supreme Court directly weighed the evidence and assessed t......
-
State Of Kan. v. Reyna
...her ex-husband and shed doubt on the credibility of her testimony regarding B.B.'s alleged statement. Reyna relies upon State v. Matlock, 233 Kan. 1, 660 P.2d 945 (1983), to support his argument that the uncorroborated testimony of the two victims was insufficient to support the convictions......
-
State v. Williams
...incredible that it must be disregarded. See State v. Brinklow, 288 Kan. 39, 53–54, 200 P.3d 1225 (2009) (identifying State v. Matlock, 233 Kan. 1, 4, 660 P.2d 945 [1983], as “perhaps the only case of its kind in this state where the Supreme Court directly weighed the evidence and assessed t......
-
State v. Boysaw
...that no reasonable factfinder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that a guilty verdict will be reversed. State v. Matlock, 233 Kan. 1, 5–6, 660 P.2d 945 (1983) ; see State v. Naramore, 25 Kan.App.2d 302, 322, 965 P.2d 211, rev. denied 266 Kan. 1114 (1998) (uncontroverted expert test......
-
§ 33.07 Proving Rape at Trial
...Requirement: Repeal Not Reform, 81 Yale L.J. 1365 (1972).[153] American Law Institute, Comment to § 213.6, at 422; State v. Matlock, 660 P.2d 945, 946 (Kan. 1983).[154] United States v. Wiley, 492 F.2d 547, 552 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (Bazelon, J., concurring).[155] 1 Hale, Note 3, supra, at *635.......
-
Appellate Decisions
...detailed facts, there was sufficient evidence for a rational factfinder to find Reyna guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Matlock, 233 Kan. 1 (1983), distinguished. As in State v. Gonzales, 289 Kan. 351 (2009), and State v. Gracey, 288 Kan. 252 (2009), failure to allege Reyna's age i......
-
§ 33.07 PROVING RAPE AT TRIAL
...Requirement: Repeal Not Reform, 81 Yale L.J. 1365 (1972).[153] . American Law Institute, Comment to § 213.6, at 422; State v. Matlock, 660 P.2d 945, 946 (Kan. 1983).[154] . United States v. Wiley, 492 F.2d 547, 552 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (Bazelon, J., concurring).[155] . 1 Hale, Note 3, supra, at......
-
TABLE OF CASES
...410 Mata-Medina v. People, 71 P.3d 973 (Colo. 2003), 127 Mathews, People v., 91 Cal. App. 3d 1018 (Ct. App. 1979), 236 Matlock, State v., 660 P.2d 945 (Kan. 1983), 565 Matos, People v., 634 N.E.2d 157 (N.Y. 1994), 496 Matter of (see name of party) Mauricio, State v., 568 A.2d 879 (N.J. 1990......