Opinion ID: 2174829
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mindful of the foregoing we look first to State v. Polson, 205 N.W.2d 740, 741 (Iowa 1973), where this court declared:

Text: Whether any item of evidence is corroborative, or whether the statutory corroboration as a whole is sufficient, is a question of law for the court, but the weight and the probative force of the testimony is a question for the determination of the jury. (Authorities cited). We also said, in State v. Campbell, 217 N.W.2d 251, 253 (Iowa 1974): Corroboration, however, need not be strong, it need not go to every element of the case, and it need not point certainly or surely to the defendant. It is enough if the evidence, either direct or circumstantial, tends to connect the defendant with the crime, permitting the jury to say if they are convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (Authorities cited). As usual in considering complaints of this kind, we view the testimony in the light most favorable to the state and accord it every intendment reasonably possible to sustain the jury's verdict. (Authorities cited). Furthermore, evidence connecting an accused with an offense such as here involved may be circumstantial or found from suspicious conduct. See State v. Polson, supra ; State v. Ladehoff, 255 Iowa 659, 663, 122 N.W.2d 829 (1963). And opportunity to commit an assault with intent to commit rape, surrounded by peculiar circumstances tending to single out an accused as the perpetrator, suffices to create a fact issue as to corroboration. More specifically, where the evidence discloses an accused (1) created the opportunity under circumstances suggestive of ill intent, or (2) was the only person who could have committed the offense, then other supportive testimony apart from that of the prosecutrix is not required. See State v. Escamilla, 182 N.W.2d 923, 924 (Iowa 1971); State v. Lahmon, 231 Iowa 448, 452-453, 1 N.W.2d 629 (1940). On the other hand, mere opportunity alone does not suffice to supply the statutorily required corroboration. See State v. Escamilla, supra ; State v. Kelly, 249 Iowa 1219, 1224-1225, 91 N.W.2d 562 (1958).