Case Name: Bernard Skipper v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1955-04-25
Citations: 196 Va. 1057
Docket Number: Record No. 4361
Parties: Bernard Skipper v. Commonwealth of Virginia.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 196
Pages: 1057–1058

Head Matter:
Richmond
Bernard Skipper v. Commonwealth of Virginia.
April 25, 1955.
Record No. 4361.
Present, Hudgins, C. J., and Eggleston, Spratley, Buchanan, Smith and Whittle, JJ.
The opinion states the case.
Harold B. Singleton and L. H. Shrader, for the plaintiff in error.
J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., Attorney General and Thomas M. Miller, Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.

Opinion:
Hudgins, C. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This writ of error brings under review the proceeding in a second trial of the accused, Bernard Skipper, on an indictment charging him with rape. On his first trial he was found guilty and sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for thirty years. That judgment was reversed by this Court on March 15, 1954, for errors stated in the opinion, 195 Va. 870, 80 S. E. (2d) 401. The testimony offered in the second trial, on which he was found guilty and sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for thirty-five years, was practically the same as that offered in the first trial. The substance of the testimony was stated in the former opinion of this Court and need not be repeated.
The accused in his petition for this writ of error makes six assignments of error, but they present only two questions: (1) Was the evidence sufficient to support the conviction; and (2) Did the trial court err in admitting two extra judicial, consistent statements of the prosecutrix relating to her recognition or identification of the accused? Both of these questions were raised when the case was formerly considered by this Court and the reasons deciding them adversely to the contention of the accused were stated at some length. A further discussion of either of the questions would be mere repetition of what we said in the former opinion, to which we adhere.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.