Court Opinion

ID: 9607051
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:55:02.856463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:33.874549
License: Public Domain

McFADDEN, Justice
(dissenting).
I must respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority. It is my opinion that the evidence introduced at trial to corroborate the prosecuting witness’s testimony presented at trial is insufficient as a matter of law to satisfy the requirement of corroboration established by this court.
This court, in State v. Madrid, 74 Idaho 200, 259 P.2d 1044 (1953), the first case in which this court considered the corroboration requirement for conviction pursuant to I.C. § 18-6607, adopted the rule1 enunciated in State v. Elsen, 68 Idaho 50, 54, 187 P.2d 976, 978 (1947):
“If the character or reputation of the prosecutrix for truth or chastity is unimpeached, and her testimony is not contradictory nor inconsistent with the admitted facts of the case, and is not inherently improbable nor incredible, there can be either direct evidence corroborating her testimony, or evidence of surrounding circumstances clearly corroborating her statements. Either will suffice.”
Accord: State v. Tope, 86 Idaho 462, 387 P.2d 888 (1963); State v. Ross, 92 Idaho 709, 449 P.2d 369 (1968). The requirement of corroboration of the testimony of the prosecuting witness for conviction of a sex-related offense is a long standing common law rule in this jurisdiction. State v. Anderson, 6 Idaho 706, 59 P. 180 (1899).
This court has yet to discuss the nature of the corroborative evidence required to sustain a conviction under I.C. § 18-6607. However, this court has ruled that evidence of an opportunity to commit the offense, by itself, does not constitute the corroboration required to sustain a conviction for a rape offense.
“We think what is meant by the rule ‘the facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense are corroboration and not contradictory of the statements of the prosecutrix’ is that they must not only support the testimony of the prosecutrix that her person has been violated, but should also be of such a character as to make it appear probable that the accused committed the offense. Facts and circumstances showing that the parties had been together under conditions that made it possible for the commission of the offense, without showing other facts and circumstances that tend to support the testimony of the prosecutrix, is not the corroboration required by this rule.” State v. Mason, 41 Idaho 506, 510, 239 P. 733, 734 (1925).
Accord: State v. Short, 39 Idaho 446, 228 P. 274 (1924); State v. Jones, 62 Idaho 552, 113 P.2d 1106 (1941); State v. Elsen, 68 Idaho 50, 187 P.2d 976 (1947). I find no reason to distinguish between rape offenses and lewd and lascivious offenses in terms of the corroboration requirement. In my opinion the evidence required to corroborate a conviction under I.C. § 18-6607 must tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime in such a way as to make it appear probable that the accused committed the offense. Wharton’s Criminal Evidence (13th ed., 1972) § 490 p. 466.
The majority cites testimony of the prosecuting witness’s sister that the appellant often took the prosecuting witness alone with him in the truck and the testimony of the prosecuting witness’s brother that the prosecuting witness did go alone with the appellant in his truck on the night in question; this testimony suggests only that the appellant had the opportunity to commit the crime. The majority cites testimony of *688family members that the appellant treated the prosecuting witness differently during the period of time the alleged act took place; this testimony does not suggest a connection between the appellant and the crime charged. The majority also cites for corroboration testimony of the prosecuting witness that vaseline was used by the appellant during commission of lewd and lascivious acts on prior occasions and testimony of the prosecuting witness’s sister that she found vaseline in the appellant’s vehicle on two occasions; however, a review of the record indicates that the sister testified that she found the vaseline and removed the vaseline from the truck on two occasions prior to the date the alleged acts were committed; thus her testimony cannot be considered to be corroborative of the incident for which the appellant is accused.
In summary, I think that, as a matter of law, the evidence cited by the majority as corroborative is not sufficient to sustain this conviction; the majority does not cite any evidence connecting the appellant with the crime charged. If this court chooses to abolish the corroboration requirement for conviction of a sex offense, let it do so directly, not indirectly.

. This rule has been modified in that the prosecuting witness’s lack of chastity is not a ground for impeachment. State v. Hall, 95 Idaho 110, 504 P.2d 383 (1972).