Taylor v. State
| Decision Date | 11 December 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 2--674A126,2--674A126 |
| Citation | 162 Ind.App. 384,319 N.E.2d 648 |
| Parties | Thornton L. TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
George T. Popcheff, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., John H. Meyers, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
The only issue presented for review by this appeal is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain defendant-appellant Thornton L. Taylor's conviction of rape. 1
The facts of this case most favorable to the State are as follows:
On the evening of August 24, 1972, the prosecutrix accepted a ride home in a car driven by Taylor. After she got in the car she, Taylor and the other two occupants, Barry and Betty, went to a liquor store, where Taylor bought some beer, and then to Washington Park. Taylor and Betty got out of the car and Barry and the prosecuting witness remained. A few minutes later Taylor returned alone and asked the prosecutrix to get out of the car. When she refused, Taylor dragged her out of the car into some nearby bushes. She struggled. Taylor threatened to blow her brains out and pushed her to the ground. Taylor then pulled off her clothes and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. A police patrol car was driving through the park, and Indianapolis Police Officer Finley heard a woman screaming and saw the prosecutrix run from the woods pulling her underwear on. Betty and Barry remained in the park where Barry was apprehended. The officer saw another man flee on foot. That man was positively identified by the prosecuting witness as the defendant.
Taylor's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence rests on the State's failure to present a medical examination report to corroborate the prosecutrix's story and upon alleged lack of credibility of the prosecuting witness.
The absence of such corroborating evidence as a medical examination report does not affect the sufficiency of this evidence. The sole and uncorroborated testimony of a rape victim is sufficient to sustain a conviction of rape, provided each and every material element of the crime is contained in her testimony. Williams v. State (1973), Ind., 297 N.E.2d 805. Combs v. State (1973), Ind.App., 303 N.E.2d 289.
In this case, the testimony of the witness partially corroborated by Officer Finley was sufficient to establish that Taylor, who was not her husband, had sexual intercourse with her against her will through...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. State
...Stacker v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 692, 348 N.E.2d 648; Beech v. State, (1974) 162 Ind.App. 287, 319 N.E.2d 678; Taylor v. State, (1974) 162 Ind.App. 384, 319 N.E.2d 648. This Court has specifically held the strictures of Ind.R.Tr.P. 59 to apply with equal force to pro se and licensed advoca......
-
Finney v. State
...a medical examination report to corroborate the prosecutrix's story does not affect the sufficiency of the evidence. Taylor v. State (1974), 162 Ind.App. 384, 319 N.E.2d 648. No reversible error having been shown, the judgment of the conviction appealed from is Affirmed. GARRARD, P. J., con......
-
Simpson v. State, 3-1174A182
...prosecutrix was not incredible, this Court must accept the trial judge's assessment of the credibility of the witness. Taylor v. State (1974), Ind.App., 319 N.E.2d 648. See also, Taylor v. State, supra; Simmons v. State (1975), Ind.App., 324 N.E.2d 513. In addition, it has frequently been s......