Territory v. Maldonado

• Decision Date: 30 August 1899
• Citation: 58 P. 350,9 N.M. 629
• Parties: TERRITORYv.MALDONADO et al.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

9 N.M. 629

58 P. 350

TERRITORY

v.MALDONADO et al.

Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico.

Aug. 30. 1899.

Syllabus by the court.

In prosecution for rape, the prosecutrix may be asked whether she made complaint of the injury, when and to whom, and the person to whom she complained may be called to prove the fact; but the particular facts stated by the prosecutrix are not admissible in evidence, except when elicited on cross-examination, or by way of confirming her testimony after it has been impeached.

Leland, J., dissenting.

Appeal from district court, San Miguel county; before Justice Thomas Smith.

Manuel Maldonado and others were convicted of crime, and appeal. Reversed.

In prosecution for rape, the prosecutrix may be asked whether she made complaint of the injury, when and to whom, and the person to whom she complained may be called to prove the fact; but the particular facts stated by the prosecutrix are not admissible in evidence, except when elicited on cross-examination, or by way of confirming her testimony after it has been impeached.

R. E. Twitchell, for appellants.

E. L. Bartlett, for the Territory.

MILLS, C. J.

The appellants were jointly indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of rape, alleged to have been committed upon the person of Teodora Martines de Maestas. The prosecutrix testified that at half past 9 o'clock in the evening of April 20, 1897, in a thickly-populated part of Las Vegas, with neighbors living in close proximity to her residence, she was called to the door of her house, dragged out, and forcibly ravished by the appellants, each one of whom she claimed accomplished his purpose. Other than the prosecutrix, there were no witnesses to the alleged violation of the person of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix testified that immediately after the alleged rape she went to the residence of a friend living just across the street, and told the woman of the house of the occurrence. A witness for the territory, Ramon Romero, a policeman, over the strenuous objection of the appellants, was permitted to testify as to statements made by the prosecutrix and conversations had with her, covering the particulars of the alleged assault, an hour or so after it was claimed by her to have been committed. In making complaint of the assault, the prosecutrix never made mention of the names of her assailants, although on the trial she claimed she knew and recognized them. The neighbor to whom she made complaint was a close friend of the prosecutrix. Other neighbors came in, and to no one of them did she tell the names of her alleged assailants. Her reason for not telling who they were was that she did not want to disclose their identity at that time. Some time afterwards, and subsequent to the arrest of the defendants on a charge of disturbing the peace, a policeman was sent for, to whom the prosecutrix also told her story and the names of two of her alleged assailants. She had known the appellants for several years. On the day following the assault, she identified the appellants as the guilty parties. This was done at the county jail. The only attempt at corroboration of the story of the prosecutrix was her testimony as to the clothes found upon the appellants when they were arrested. The appellants denied the charge. Their defense was an alibi, and evidence showing their whereabouts at the time of the alleged rape was not broken by any testimony on the part of the territory, and was uncontradicted except by that of the prosecutrix.

The appellants contend as follows: (1) That the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutrix to testify as to the details and particulars of her conversation and to her acts at the house of her neighbor, Cruz Segura, subsequent to the commission of the rape. (2) That the court erred in permitting the witness Ramon Romero to testify as to the details of his conversation with the prosecutrix at the time she made complaint to him as an officer. (3) That the court erred in permitting the witness Ramon Romero to testify that the prosecutrix had identified the appellants at the jail as being the men who had assaulted her. (4) The statements and declarations made by the prosecutrix to the wife of Cruz Segura and Policeman Romero were not a part of the res gestae, and their admission is assigned as error. (5) To exclude the testimony of defendants' witnesses who were asked to testify as to statements made by the prosecutrix contrary to those given at the trial is assigned as error. (6) The prosecutrix and the other witnesses for the territory were permitted to testify as to statements made by the prosecutrix subsequent to the alleged assault. The witnesses for the defense were denied the right to testify as to those same statements and others made by the prosecutrix. This also is assigned as error. Other assignments are made which it is unnecessary to consider.

As to the first assignment, it is contended by the territory that the prosecutrix only testified as to facts and circumstances connected with the assault, other than a mere complaint of the assault, upon cross-examination. The record discloses the fact that upon direct examination the prosecutrix did go into details of her acts and conversations with Policeman Romero; and the other witnesses in chief for the territory were allowed, over the objection and exception of the appellants, to go into details of all statements made by the prosecutrix subsequent to the alleged assault. Under the great weight...