Opinion ID: 1320521
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ruth strohmeyer testimony

Text: Ruth Strohmeyer was an assistant manager at the Ramada Inn and knew both the victim and defendant. The crimes occurred the night of October 23 and early morning hours of October 24, 1978. Early in the morning of October 24, the victim contacted Ms. Strohmeyer and told her what had happened, and they arranged to meet about 5:30 that evening. Shortly after the meeting the victim reported the crime to the police, after being driven to the police station by Ms. Strohmeyer and the motel manager. Defendant objected to the Strohmeyer testimony on the ground it was incompetent, immaterial and prejudicial. On appeal he contends it was improperly admitted to bolster the victim's testimony. While as a general rule the testimony of a witness cannot be bolstered or supported by showing she has made prior consistent out of court statements, there are limitations and exceptions, including that for rape prosecution. See 81 Am.Jur.2d, Witnesses §§ 641-644. 65 Am.Jur.2d, Rape § 76, p. 805, states: As a general rule, hearsay evidence is incompetent and inadmissible to establish a fact, but the admission of evidence of the complaint of the victim in a rape prosecution is an exception to the hearsay rule. Thus the courts are unanimous in holding that in prosecutions for rape and assault with intent to commit rape, the fact that the prosecutrix made a complaint shortly after the offense can be shown either through her testimony or through the testimony of other witnesses. Evidence of the complaint may be shown for the purpose of corroborating the testimony of the prosecutrix, but not as independent evidence of the offense charged, unless made in extremis. Evidence of the failure of the woman to complain, or of a delay in making the complaint, is a circumstance which tends to discredit the victim's testimony. The victim returned home about 2:30 a.m. on October 24, 1978, and did not report the crime to the police until approximately 7:00 o'clock that evening. No error is shown in the admission of the testimony as to conversations with the victim. Defendant also claims error in the admission of Ms. Strohmeyer's testimony that she was scared to death of defendant. To determine this point it is necessary to place the testimony in context. The witness testified as to her conversations with the victim. Defendant cross-examined the witness, wherein the following occurred: Q Well, let's go to, say, Wednesday morning, the day of the 24th [ sic ]. Did you have a conversation with Kathy Washington [defendant's wife] at that time? A It's possible. I don't remember. Q And was the substance of that conversation that Kathy told you that he had been arrested for rape, and you said this is the first you've ever heard about it? A Yes. Q Or words to that effect? A That's right. Q You did have that conversation? A Yes, I recall. MR. BROWN: That's all I have. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WURTZ: Q Why was that you told the defendant's wife that this was the first you had heard about it? A Because I'm scared to death of George. Defendant was apparently trying to impeach the witness by showing a prior inconsistent statement. Defendant opened the door to this line of testimony and the State had the right to cross-examine the witness on the subject. The extent of cross-examination in such instances lies largely within the discretion of the trial court. See State v. Burnett, 221 Kan. 40, 44, 558 P.2d 1087 (1976). No abuse of discretion is shown.