Court Opinion

ID: 7807685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:08:34.715269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:22.498278
License: Public Domain

Smith, J., (after stating the facts). 'Convictions in cases of this kind do not depend solely upon the evidence of the prosecuting witness, and a conviction may be had where the proof is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt, without reference to the testimony of the girl, alleged to have been oarnaily abused. Such cases are, of course, unusual, but the beneficent purpose of the law to protect the virtue of girls, who have not reached the age of discretion, might in many cases be defeated if the law were otherwise. In this case, however, we should hold the proof insufficient if the proof of appellant’s guilt depended upon the evidence of the girl alone, because her last statement was an emphatic denial that appellant had ever had sexual intercourse with her, and the conviction. would not have been ¡proper in the face of such testimony if there had been no other evidence of appellant’s guilt. Moore on Facts, section 1271; Crowe v. House of the Good Shepherd, 56 N. Y. Sup. 223. But, as has been shown, there was other evidence which we think was legally sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury. The crime of carnal abuse had been committed upon the person of the girl, and appellant’s statements tended to show that he was guilty of this crime. The affidavit and the letter set out in the statement of facts were not competent as affirmative matter tending to-show the guilt of the accused, but they became competent for the purpose of contradicting and impeaching the prosecuting witness when she testified that appellant had never at any time had intercourse with her. But for this denial they would not have been competent. But the denial made them admissible, as the party producing a witness, when surprised by adverse testimony, may show, for the purpose of impeachment by contradiction, that the witness has made prior statements inconsistent with the one made on the stand. See 3137, Kirby’s Digest; Williams v. Cantrell, 170 S. W. 250, 114 Ark. 542. There were other errors assigned in the motion for a new trial, tout we do not regard them as of sufficient importance to require a discussion, and finding no error ia the record the judgment of the court below is affirmed.