Case Title: Reynolds v. State

Citation: 146 So. 2d 85

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1962-10-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
146 So. 2d 85 (1962)
Kermit Billy REYNOLDS
v.
STATE of Alabama.
1 Div. 78.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
October 25, 1962.
Granade & Granade, Chatom, for appellant.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Ed Brogden, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
GOODWYN, Justice.
Appellant was indicted and tried for violation of § 398, Tit. 14, Code 1940, which provides as follows:
The jury found appellant guilty and fixed his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for 42 years. Sentence was imposed accordingly.
Appellant's motion for a new trial, charging insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, was overruled. Our conclusion is that the motion should have been granted. (The motion also asserts error in refusing to give appellant's requested affirmative charge, but such charge does not appear in the record.)
Section 398 embraces two offenses, one being carnal knowledge and the other abuse in the attempt to have carnal knowledge. "Carnal knowledge", as used in the *86 statute, means sexual intercourse, that is, the actual penetration of the male sexual organ into the sexual organ of the female. The holding in Dawkins v. State, 58 Ala. 376, 29 Am.Rep. 754, clearly implies this. See also: State v. Normandale, 154 La. 523, 97 So. 798; Harris v. State, 72 Fla. 128, 72 So. 520, 521; Strawderman v. Commonwealth, 200 Va. 855, 108 S.E.2d 376, 379; State v. Bowman, 232 N.C. 374, 61 S.E.2d 107; State v. Ramsdell, 242 Iowa 62, 45 N.W.2d 503, 508; State v. Schwartz, 215 Minn. 476, 10 N.W.2d 370, 371; Wharton's Criminal Law, 12th Ed., Vol. 1, § 685, p. 919, § 697, p. 934; Bishop on Statutory Crimes, 3rd Ed. § 488, p. 414; Bishop on Criminal Law, 9th Ed., § 1132, p. 838; Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., "Carnal knowledge," p. 268; Ballentine's Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed., "Carnal knowledge," p. 190, "Sexual intercourse," p. 1194; 75 C.J.S. Rape § 10, pp. 471-472; 12 C.J.S. Carnal p. 1151; 52 C.J., Rape, §§ 22, 23, p. 1014; 9 C.J., Carnal Knowledge, p. 1293; Words and Phrases, Perm.Ed., Vol. 6, "Carnal knowledge," p. 160; Words and Phrases, Perm.Ed., Vol. 39, "Sexual intercourse," p. 107.
From State v. Normandale, 154 La. 523, 97 So. 798, 800, supra, is the following:
The Virginia statute (Code of Virginia, § 18-54) provides in part:
In discussing this statute in Strawderman v. Commonwealth, 200 Va. 855, 108 S.E.2d 376, 379, supra, the Virginia Superior Court of Appeals had this to say:
There is no evidence whatever supporting the charge of carnal knowledge. Nor does the evidence support the charge of abuse in the attempt to have carnal knowledge. While there is ample evidence showing an abuse of the child, we find no evidence showing an abuse of her genital or sexual organs. It has been held many times that an injury to these parts, in the attempt to have carnal knowledge, is the abuse to which the statute refers. See: Huggins v. State, 271 Ala. 428, 434, 123 So. 2d 911; Smith v. State, 256 Ala. 444, 446, 55 So. 2d 208; Lee v. State, 246 Ala. 69, 71, 18 So. 2d 706; James v. State, 246 Ala. 617, 619, 21 So. 2d 847; Hutto v. State, 169 Ala. 19, 20, 53 So. 809; Sims v. State, 146 Ala. 109(14), 41 So. 413; Castleberry v. State, 135 Ala. 24, 28, 33 So. 431; Dawkins v. State, 58 Ala. 376, 378-379, 29 Am.Rep. 754; Rushing v. State, 39 Ala.App. 32, 38, 94 So. 2d 770, cert. den. 266 Ala. 700, 94 So. 2d 777; Smith v. State, 34 Ala.App. 45, 50, 38 So. 2d 341; Lee v. State, 31 Ala.App. 91, 97, 13 So. 2d 583, cert. den. 244 Ala. 401, 13 So. 2d 590; Montgomery v. State, 28 Ala.App. 442, 445, 186 So. 589; Miller v. State, 16 Ala.App. 534, 535, 79 So. 314; 75 C.J.S. Rape § 28, p. 493; 44 Am.Jur., Rape, § 18, p. 913.
The medical testimony, as well as that of other witnesses, shows only that the rectum and the area around the rectum were bruised or injured. We find nothing whatever in the evidence showing any abuse or injury of the girl's genital or sexual organs.
The state had the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, one of the charges included in the indictment. Failing in this, the conviction cannot stand, even though the evidence undoubtedly is sufficient to support a charge of another heinous crime.
The judgment is due to be reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.