Court Opinion

ID: 9681533
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:52:08.304904+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:21.140699
License: Public Domain

Bobinson, J., dissenting. I don’t suppose that ever before in the entire history of civilized society has a human being been imprisoned for life on such weak and unsatisfactory evidence as that upon which the defendant was convicted in this case. The thirteen year old daughter’s testimony is uncorroborated by substantial evidence or circumstances of any kind. Although corroboration of the testimony of the alleged victim is not necessary in a case of this kind, lack of corroboration should be considered in passing on the motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The trial court appointed two lawyers for the defendant, hut they took no part in the case subsequent to the trial. The attorney who represents appellant on appeal filed a motion for a new trial alleging, inter alia, newly discovered evidence. At the trial, the prosecutrix testified that her father raped her three times within a period of about 45 minutes. Her younger brothers and sisters were nearby; some Negroes were also close to the scene. There is no evidence that anyone heard an outcry, nor does the prosecutrix testify that she made an outcry. The rape is alleged to have occurred on the first day of July, 1954. Prosecutrix says she told her mother about it that night, yet no charges were filed against the defendant until two months later on August 30, 1954. The testimony of the prosecutrix is not convincing. She admitted that she dislikes her father and that such feeling existed a long time before the rape is alleged to have occurred. Her testimony that her father “raped” her is a mere conclusion on her part, since no showing is made that she knows the meaning of the word rape. The following is a question asked her and the answer she gave: (‘ ‘ Q. Wanda, I am sorry to have to ask you this, but did he penetrate you with his private organs? That is the question I want to ask you, for the jury to hear. Do you understand what I asked? “A. No, sir.” It can be seen that two questions were propounded to the witness as one question. Her answer was “no”. She could have meant that he did not penetrate her, or she could have meant that she did not understand the question. In the light of the evidence developed on the motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, it would appear that when she said “no”, she meant that there was no penetration. As heretofore stated, the attorney who represented the defendant on the motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence did not represent him at the trial. This attorney discovered that prior to the trial, the State had the prosecutrix examined but did not produce the examining physician as a witness. This physician was called as a witness on the motion for a new trial, and testified that he examined the prosecutrix on the 4th day of August, almost a month before the defendant was charged with-the offense. The doctor stated: “There was no physical evidence that this girl, Wanda Lou McDonald, had ever experienced sexual intercourse as we commonly speak of it.” He testified further:- “Q. Doctor, in that examination, did you find the state of the hymen at that time? “A. Yes, sir. “Q. What was the state of the hymen? “A. The hymen was imperforate. “Q. Imperforate — what does that mean? “A. It means that it had never been perforated. Its hymenal opening was annularial in shape — that means circular — and less than one c.c. in diameter. One c.e. is one-third of an inch. It would not admit the tip of my little finger.” The doctor also testified that there was no evidence of trauma or disease. On cross-examination, he stated: ‘‘Q. Doctor, isn’t it true that this- — it’s possible you could be mistaken as to whether or not this girl had had intercourse with her father or not, from the examination you made? I just ask you if it is possible that you could be wrong? “A. I don’t see how it could be possible, because on August 4, this child would not admit without severe pain — I caused her some pain in an effort to examine her — and she wouldn’t admit anything larger than an ordinary cigarette. “Q. Than an ordinary cigarette; isn’t it true that at different times of the month, there is a difference in the expansion of a girl — a difference in the expansion? “A. No, there is no change in it; I might add that there is quite a wide variation of the size of the hymenal opening in different individuals.” It was further shown in the hearing on the motion that, subsequent to the arrest of appellant, the mother of the prosecutrix stated in her daughter’s presence that the child was not raped but she did not know the difference. The prosecuting witness was standing there when her mother made this statement and did not deny what the mother said. When one of the attorneys who had represented the defendant at the trial was called as a witness on the motion for a new trial for the purpose of showing whether he knew that the prosecutrix had been examined by a doctor prior to the trial, he refused to testify. The court did not compel him to do so. In any event, a jury passing on the guilt or innocence of the defendant should have had the benefit of the testimony of the doctor who made the physical examination subsequent to the time the rape is alleged to have occurred. Therefore, I would grant á new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.