Court Opinion

ID: 9653410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:46:21.557486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:58.996276
License: Public Domain

Jo un A. Eooleman, Justice. I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion on the basis of my understanding of the disposition being made. As I understand the majority opinion, the court is remanding the case with the state having the option of asking the trial court to sentence Clark upon a charge of carnal abuse, or of having a new trial on the charge of rape with the court giving the instruction on rape given at the first trial and the instruction on carnal abuse as requested. The only prejudice 1 can see in the court’s instruction to the jury on the second trial is that it permitted the jury to find appellant guilty of rape if they believed that the child was over 10 and less than 11 years of age and consented to the act of intercourse. Under the law as it existed prior to the effective date of Act 362 of 1967, sexual intercourse with a female under 10 years of age would have constituted the crime of rape because she is incapable of giving consent, as a matter of law, and it would be presumed that a female under 12 but over 10 years of age was incapable of consenting, unless the proof showed that she understood the nature of the act and was capable of consenting thereto. State v. Pierson, 44 Ark. 265; Coates v. State, 50 Ark. 330, 7 S.W. 304. See also Warner v. State, 54 Ark. 660, 17 S.W. 6; Hammons v. State, 73 Ark. 495, 84 S.W. 718; Rose v. State, 122 Ark. 509, 184 S.W. 60. I do not consider that because the victim testified that she was .9 years of age, the “law of the ease” limits the crime of which appellant can be found guilty to carnal abuse. Ilis plea of not guilty put in issue the credibility of the state’s evidence, even if otherwise uncontradicted, because the presumption of innocence compels a determination of guilt by a jury. Underhill’s Criminal Evidence, 5th Ed. 1384, § 553. Otherwise, the court could direct a verdict in criminal cases. See Manning v. State. 145 S.W. 938 (Tex. 1912). In a prosecution for rape of a child, the child’s age is a question of fact. Young v. State, 144 Ark. 71, 221 S.W. 478; Hedrick v. State, 170 Ark. 1193, 279 S.W. 785; State v. Sutton, 230 N.C. 244, 52 S.E. 2d 921 (1949) Age may be proved in many different ways such as direct testimony, records and inscriptions, hearsay, opinion and observation, inspection of the person, and Ms appearance to the jury. Terry Dairy Co. v. Halley, 146 Ark. 448, 225 S.W. 887. See also Young v. State, supra; Abbott on Facts, Ch. XIV, p. 164; Gurley v. State, 179 Ark. 1149, 20 S.W. 2d 886, State v. Baugh, 323 S.W. 2d 685 (Mo. 1959). In determining the question of fact as to age and consent, the jury, in a criminal case, is not required to accept or reject any testimony. King v. State, 117 Ark. 82, 173 S.W. 852; Smith v. State, 216 Ark. 1, 223 S.W. 2d 1011; Freeman v. State, 174 Ark. 1035, 298 S.W. 333. See also People v. Johns, 173 Cal. App. 2d 38, 343 P. 2d 92 (1959).