State v. Viles
| Citation | 161 Me. 28,206 A.2d 539 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. Robert F. VILES, Sr. |
| Decision Date | 28 January 1965 |
| Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US) |
Walter G. Casey, Asst. County Atty., Portland, for the State.
Joseph E. Brennan, Portland, for defendant.
Before WILLIAMSON, C. J., and WEBBER, TAPLEY, SULLIVAN, SIDDALL and MARDEN, JJ.
On appeal.
After a verdict of guilty to a charge of sodomy, seasonable motion for a new trial upon allegation that the verdict was against the evidence and denial of that motion, the respondent appealed. The single question before this court is whether in view of all the testimony, the jury was warranted in believing beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent was guilty as charged. State v. Croteau, 158 Me. 360, 361, 184 A.2d 683.
The charge is founded upon complaint by the respondent's daughter, 15 years of age at the time of the alleged offense, that on December 21, 1963 in the absence of the wife and mother, the respondent and complainant engaged in perversive sexual conduct in which the girl's anus was involved. The crucial element of fact is whether or not during the incident there was penetration of the complainant's anus by the male sex organ of the accused. Such penetration is an essential element of the offense. 48 Am.Jur., Sodomy § 2.
The word 'anus' (or any synonymous word) appears nowhere in the record. All reference to that portion of the complainant's body allegedly involved is recorded as 'rectum'. The two words identify separate portions of the human anatomy.
The rectum is 'the terminal part of the intestine * * * from the sigmoid flexure to the anus.' The anus is 'the posterior opening of the alimentary canal.' Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, 1961.
Any penetration of the rectum from without, would, by physical necessity, involve a penetration of the anus, but there could be a penetration of the anus without penetration of the rectum.
Apart from the conclusion which would have to follow a finding of penetration of the rectum, whether or not the rectum were penetrated is technically irrelevant to this case. The fact that State's counsel, witnesses and the presiding justice used the word in obvious reference to the anal orifice, cures no deficiency in the record. We can test the validity of the verdict only upon the premise that if the jury were justified in finding that there were penetration of the complainant's rectum by the virile sex organ of the respondent, there had to be penetration per anum,--upon which the charge necessarily has to be based.
The accusation stands or falls upon the direct testimony of the complainant and certain statements made by the accused in the presence of the complainant, her mother, and attending officers. The extraction of the facts controlling the charge is complicated by the allegations that the respondent's sexual endeavors were directed both to the anterior and posterior portions of the complainant's body. Portions of both her testimony and the statements attributed to the respondent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Liberty
...a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty as charged.' State v. Trask, 1966, Me., 223 A.2d 823. See also, State v. Viles, Sr., 1965, 161 Me. 28, 206 A.2d 539. It has long been the rule in this State, except where otherwise provided by statute, that any crime may be proved by circumst......
-
State v. Trask
...... The single question raised before this Court upon appeal from the denial of a motion for a new trial is whether in view of all the testimony, the jury was warranted in believing beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty as charged. State of Maine v. Viles, Sr., . Page 824. 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 belief beyond a reasonable doubt, the reviewing court on appeal from judgment of ......
-
State v. Pratt
...male sexual organ is an essential element of the crime. State v. Pratt, 151 Me. 236, 238, 116 A.2d 924, 925 (1955); State v. Viles, 161 Me. 28, 29, 206 A.2d 539 (1956). A brief recital of the facts is necessary to our evaluation of the effect of the error upon the The little boy testified t......
-
State v. White
...believing beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent was guilty.' State v. Dipietrantonio, 152 Me. 41, 54, 122 A.2d 414; State v. Viles, 161 Me. 28, 206 A.2d 539. The additional point relating to prejudice is also raised by the We may also set aside a verdict on appeal, although no excep......