State v. Yates
| Decision Date | 17 February 1965 |
| Citation | 399 P.2d 161,239 Or. 596 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Calvin Butler YATES, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Philip A. Levin, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Pozzi, Levin & Wilson, Portland.
William Wiswall, Deputy Dist. Atty., Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was William F. Frye, Dist. Atty., Eugene.
Before McALLISTER, C. J., and SLOAN, GOODWIN, HOLMAN and LUSK, JJ.
Defendant appeals a conviction of violating ORS 163.210 ().
We are asked to set aside the conviction on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict.
The only evidence that an act of intercourse occurred was the testimony of the prosecutrix. In this state, however, the testimony of the prosecutrix alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction. State v. Friddles, 62 Or. 209. 123 P. 904 (1912).
The testimony of the girl was impeached by proof that the day before the trial, in an interview with defense counsel, the prosecutrix said that there had been no act of intercourse. In the interview the girl adhered, however, to her story that she had spent the night alone with the defendant in his apartment under circumstances that were entirely consistent with the story she told the grand jury and the trial jury under oath. At the trial she swore that there had been intercourse.
The state concedes that the credibility of the state's principal witness was substantially weakened, but argues that as a matter of law her testimony was competent evidence. The trial judge so ruled. There was no error. The jury are the judges of the effect or value of the evidence addressed to them. ORS 17.250. A witness is presumed to speak the truth. This presumption, however, may be overcome by the manner in which he testifies, or by evidence affecting his character or motives, or by contradictory evidence. Whether or not the presumption has been overcome is a matter within the exclusive province of the jury. ORS 44.370.
The jury's verdict will not be disturbed by this court unless we can affirmatively say that there was no evidence to support it. Oregon Constitution, Art. VII, § 3 (Amended). Whether or not counsel or the courts believe the witness is immaterial. The jury believed her. We cannot say that there was no evidence to support the verdict.
A final assignment of error...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lopez v. State
...such a charge is easily made and difficult to disprove.' 130 A.L.R. 1489 and Supplemental Decisions. See, in particular, State v. Yates, 1965, 239 Or. 596, 399 P.2d 161, declaring that in a rape case the jury is the judge of effect or value of evidence addressed to it.3 The provision of the......
-
Krause v. Eugene Dodge, Inc.
...verdict even in criminal cases, in which the burden of the state is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Yates, 239 Or. 596, 598, 398 P.2d 161 (1965), and State v. Pace, 187 Or. 498, 504, 212 P.2d 755 (1949). See also Thom v. Bailey, 257 Or. 572, 579, 481 P.2d 355 Defendan......
-
State v. Jorgensen
...stories at previous times be a basis for disallowing her testimony. Harding v. State, supra, 246 A.2d at 306. See also State v. Yates, 239 Or. 596, 399 P.2d 161 (1965). Defendant's strenuous objections to their testimony both at trial and on appeal go to its weight rather than its admissibi......
-
State v. Romel, s. 80-10-194
...in refusing to give it. State v. Harwood, 45 Or.App. 931, 941, 609 P.2d 1312, rev. den. 289 Or. 337 (1980); see State v. Yates, 239 Or. 596, 599, 399 P.2d 161 (1965). Merely because a proposed instruction correctly states the law does not of itself compel that it be given. State v. Rovles, ......