Court Opinion

ID: 9694548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:46:23.50579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:03.254923
License: Public Domain

Heher, J.
(dissenting). I would reverse the judgment of conviction for error in the admission of the evidence of a healed partial rupture of the child’s hymen found on the physical examination had more than two years after the time of the alleged first offense.
Considered in relation to the particular circumstances, especially the equivocal and uncertain evidence of actual penetration, if there was any evidence at all, the condition of the hymen so long after the time of the asserted offense was too remote to have probative value. That it was prejudicial can hardly be gainsaid; it may well have been the determining factor; indeed, I have no doubt that to the lay mind it was deemed conclusive of guilt. And the delay in making the complaint that initiated the criminal proceeding has its disturbing connotations.
I do not read the second count of these indictments as charging an offense denounced by R. S. 1937, 2 :110-2.
But I concur in all that the Chief Justice says respecting the principles of appellate procedure, made the subject matter of Part I of his opinion.