PAIR, Associate Judge, Retired:
Charged in two counts of an indictment with two separate rapes,1 one on May 30, 1973, and the other on June 12, 1973, appellant was found guilty after a jury trial of each offense and consecutive sentences of five to fifteen years imprisonment were imposed. This appeal followed and the contentions are that the trial court (1) abused its discretion in refusing to sever, for purposes of the trial, the two rape counts, (2) erred in denying appellant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal at the end of the government’s case, and (3) erred in refusing to instruct the jury that corroboration of the complainants’ testimony must be found before returning a guilty verdict. A further contention is that the evidence was insufficient to support the guilty verdict. A rather detailed recital of the evidence is required to put the issues in proper perspective.
The First Rape
Sometime after 10:00 p. m. on May 30, 1973, Eugenia Dickerson was raped by a man later identified as appellant. Mrs. Dickerson was employed at that time at the City Post Office on a 10:30 p. m. to 7:00 a. m. shift. About 9:55 p. m. that night she was standing at a bus stop at Division Avenue and Grant Street, N.E., when appellant, driving a light blue Volkswagen, stopped and spoke to her. He stated that he knew her family, had seen her taking her little girl to nursery school and had been intending to speak to her. Mrs. Dickerson did not know appellant and had never seen him before. Appellant inquired as to her presence at the bus stop and she explained that she had missed the bus and was concerned that she would be late for her job at the City Post Office. Appellant offered to take her to work and she accepted and got in the front of the automobile.
Appellant, instead of driving to her place of employment, proceeded in another direc[337]*337tion, first to a liquor store and then to a gasoline service station. The station was closed, and after a brief conversation during which appellant stated that he was a counselor at D. C. General Hospital, Mrs. Dickerson insisted that he leave the station so that she could get to work. Appellant’s demeanor changed abruptly and he turned to her saying in an angry tone, “I started to blow your head off when I first saw you on the corner. . . . I’m going to kill you.” Observing that she was frightened appellant said. “You can’t run, and you can’t holler, because nobody will hear you. .” In reply to her questions as to why he had brought her there instead of taking her to work and why he wanted to kill her, appellant explained that her husband had hit appellant’s brother’s wife in the eye and injured her face.
Mrs. Dickerson was ordered to get in the back of the automobile and influenced by the threats made on her life and appellant’s furtive motions under the seat of the automobile, she complied, after which appellant demanded and obtained her submission to sexual intercourse.
Following the incident appellant transported Mrs. Dickerson to her place of employment and she immediately reported to her supervisor that she had been attacked, felt unable to work and wanted to go to the nurse on duty. A few minutes later she informed the nurse that she had been raped but was, nevertheless, required to complete her work shift. The following morning, she reported the rape to the physician, in charge of the Venereal Disease Clinic at D. C. General Hospital and was medically examined. She also informed her pastor of the rape and at the end of her work shift the following morning, she reported it to the Metropolitan Police Department. On June 21, 1973, and after appellant’s arrest for the June 12 rape, she attended a police department lineup and immediately identified appellant as the man who raped her. Mrs. Dickerson’s supervisor, her pastor, and the physician who examined her at D. C. General corroborated, in substantial detail, the account of the rape given the police.
The Second Rape
Portia Mills, the victim of the second rape, was at that time an employee of the Narcotics Treatment Administration at D. C. General Hospital. On June 12, 1973, Miss Mills participated in a work “Group Session” during which she experienced difficulty with some of her co-workers. Appellant, also an employee of the agency, was present and after the session he expressed sympathetic concern and his desire to counsel with her. Miss Mills had never socialized with appellant but because of his expressed interest in her work she invited him to her home for the discussion. Appellant declined and suggested that they talk in his automobile, a light blue Volkswagen. Appellant drove around for a while and at the insistence of Miss Mills he stopped the car at a small park near her home and continued the conversation while seated on a park bench near the street. Sometime later appellant went to his car and got a dark robe which he spread on the grass saying it would be much more comfortable than the bench. Miss Mills agreed and sat with him on the robe as they continued their conversation about her work. According to her testimony the following then transpired: “All of a sudden he just changed from the rational person that was talking to me before that had talked to me all evening . . . and said one or two things about wanting me, and all of this kind of stuff.” Miss Mills requested that he take her home.
Appellant refused and told her that the real reason he had wanted to see her after work was to beat heir for something she had done to him. He stated that “her good friend” had told him all about it and that he started to kill her, the complainant, the previous Saturday but changed his mind. Threatening her with assault and death, appellant demanded that she take [338]*338off her underpants. She refused and appellant took off his belt and holding it in a threatening manner repeated his demand that she take off her pants. When she continued to say no appellant jumped on her and began to choke her saying that if she screamed he would kill her. Miss Mills, “scared to death” and convinced that he “meant business”, submitted to sexual intercourse. She was then returned to her home, but was so disturbed that she sat for a while on her front porch rather than risk having her young niece discover, from her agitated condition, what had happened.
On the following day Miss Mills, still agitated, informed both her attorney and a close friend of the incident. Later that day her attorney accompanied her to a police precinct station to report the rape, and she was later taken to D. C. General Hospital where an examination of the cervical area disclosed the presence of spermatozoa. An examination of her underpants by an F.B.I. expert disclosed a semen stain. Miss Mills identified appellant as her assailant, identified the light blue Volkswagen which he was driving, and identified also the car robe on which she was raped. Both Miss Mills’ attorney and her friend corroborated her initial account of the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident.
Before the close of the government’s case, a police officer identified photographs of the interior and exterior of appellant’s light blue Volkswagen, depicting a black interior and a dark colored robe on the rear seat.
The Issue of Joinder
We address first appellant’s contention that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for severance of the rape counts. D.C.Code 1973, § 23-311(a), permits the joinder of two or more offenses when each is charged in a separate count of the indictment, if such offenses “. . . are of the same or similar character . . . .” 2
Appellant urges, however, that because the two rapes were unrelated and occurred at different times, by charging them in one indictment the jury was permitted to cum-ulate the evidence in support of each offense with prejudicial effect within the purview of Super.Ct.Cr.R. 14.3
Whenever similar but unrelated offenses are charged in an indictment to a single defendant, there is a possibility of some prejudice but, without more, such a joinder is permitted. Cupo v. United States, 123, U.S.App.D.C. 324, 359 F.2d 990 (1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1013, 87 S.Ct. 723, 17 L.Ed.2d 549 (1967). The court pointed out in Drew v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 11, 17, 331 F.2d 85, 91 (1964):
[Cjourts, including our own, have . found no prejudicial effect from joinder when the evidence of each crime is simple and distinct, even, though such evidence might not have been admissible in separate trials .
See also and compare United States v. Miller, 145 U.S.App.D.C. 312, 319, 449 F.2d 974, 980 (1970); Hill v. United States, 135 U.S.App.D.C. 233, 418 F.2d 449 (1968).
Moreover, while the two rapes here involved occurred at different times, the methods employed by the rapist in each case were strikingly similar. For example, in each case the rapist, driving a light blue Volkswagen, invited the victim into the automobile as an act of friendly concern and for an apparently innocent pur[339]*339pose. In each case the friendly attitude of the rapist changed suddenly, and without provocation, to one of anger accompanied by threats of bodily harm and death, because of some injury allegedly perpetrated on him or some one of his relatives by the victim or some one of her relatives. In each case the rape was accomplished by first putting the victim in fear of her life and then apparently abandoning that purpose and demanding and obtaining submission to sexual intercourse. Finally, after each rape the victim was treated kindly and returned to her destination. United States v. Miller, supra; Drew v. United States, supra.
We may reverse an order denying severance under Super.Ct.Cr.R. 14 only upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. Hurt v. United States, D.C.App., 314 A.2d 489, 491-92 (1974); Coleman v. United States, D.C.App., 298 A.2d 40, 42 (1972). Because in the case at bar the evidence as to each rape was carefully separated and submitted to the jury after proper instructions, we are satisfied that there was no abuse of discretion in denying severance. Bell v. United States, D.C. App., 332 A.2d 351, 353-54 (1975). See also Hill v. United States, supra.
The Corroboration Issues
Before the commencement of the trial and after the disposition of the motion to sever, the prosecution requested that the court not instruct the jury, at the close of the evidence, that it must find corroboration of the victims’ testimony before returning guilty verdicts. The court granted the motion over objection of appellant’s counsel saying:
I see no reason under the sun in this day and age ... to say that on the uncorroborated testimony of a victim a defendant can be convicted of kidnapping while armed, armed robbery arising out of the same transaction and . . . where he then commits a rape he can be convicted of the kidnapping while armed on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant . . . but cannot be convicted of assault with intent to commit rape on her uncorroborated testimony ....
The motion is granted. Counsel, I will not instruct on corroboration, and counsel are admonished not to argue any issue of corroboration, either in opening or closing statements. You can argue credibility fully, and you can argue the evidence fully, but nothing to indicate to the jury that there is any legal requirement of corroboration. You can argue the presence or absence of corroboration, but you can’t argue the legal principle that corroboration is required. [Emphasis added.]
A. The sufficiency of the evidence.
Following the court’s announcement that it would not instruct the jury as to the requirement of corroboration, the government proceeded with its proof. Each of the complaining witnesses testified in detail as outlined above as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the sexual assaults, the threats of death and grave bodily harm which coerced them into submission and the sexual penetration which followed. The cross-examination of the complainants followed the usual pattern in sex cases — the thrust being toward the destruction of credibility by suggestions of provocation or consensual participation. When the government sought to introduce independent evidence, corroborative of the complainants’ testimony, appellant objected, referring to the trial court’s ruling on the corroboration instruction issue. The court overruled the objection saying:
I will permit the government to produce all the corroboration it’s got,4 I am going [340]*340to permit the government to argue the full evidence, and I am going to permit you to argue for the absence of corroboration. It’s merely that I am not going to ask of the jury, nor am I going to permit counsel to allude to the jury of any legal necessity for corroboration.
At the close of the evidence appellant moved for a judgment of acquittal which was denied. The court then instructed the jury as to the elements of the offense of rape, the burden of proof, the presumption of innocence, and as to the jury’s duty to determine the credibility of the witnesses. The court instructed the jury further that:
You may consider whether or not the witness has been corroborated by other independent evidence, or whether the witness lacks corroboration with respect to any relevant issue. . . As I have indicated, you may consider whether the witness has been contradicted or corroborated by other credible and independent evidence.
Defense counsel then renewed his request for a specific instruction as to the corroboration requirement and when the request was again denied the cases were submitted to the jury which returned guilty verdicts.
A long line of decisions in this jurisdiction hold that the accused of rape or any lesser included sex offense may not be convicted without some evidence direct or circumstantial corroborating the testimony of the victim. See In re W. E. P., D.C.App., 318 A.2d 286, 288 (1974); Evans v. United States, D.C.App., 299 A.2d 136 (1973). It is also well established that any such case must
. . . be sent to the jury with instructions making clear that a guilty verdict may not be based solely on complainant’s testimony, even assuming that her account and demeanor appear convincing. The jury must also be told that corroboration of the complainant’s testimony is essential, and that it is their responsibility as jurors to determine whether evidence which they credit establishes such corroboration. [Citations omitted.] [United States v. Bryant, 137 U.S.App. D.C. 124, 128, 420 F.2d 1327, 1331 (1969).]
See also Borum v. United States, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 147, 151-53, 409 F.2d 433, 437-39 (1967), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 916, 89 S.Ct. 1765, 23 L.Ed.2d 230 (1969); cf. Washington v. United States, 136 U.S.App.D.C. 54, 419 F.2d 636 (1969).
Stressing the absence of any showing of forced sexual intercourse, such as bruises or lacerations in the complainants’ private areas, appellant urges that the independent corroborative evidence was insufficient for jury consideration. But the government was not required to establish that the acts of sexual intercourse were forcibly consummated. It was enough that the victims were shown to have had at that time a reasonable belief induced by threats that they faced death or serious bodily harm. Johnson v. United States, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 174, 426 F.2d 651 (1970); Ewing v. United States, 77 U.S.App.D.C. 14, 16, 135 F.2d 633, 635 (1942), cert. denied, 318 U.S. 776, 63 S.Ct. 829, 87 L.Ed. 1145 (1943).
Moreover, in In re W. E. P., supra 318 A.2d at 288, this court, quoting with approval from Evans v. United States, supra, and United States v. Gray, 155 U.S.App.D.C. 275, 477 F.2d 444 (1973), made it clear that:
‘[t]he corroboration that is required need not be direct evidence but may consist of circumstances which tend to support the victim’s testimony.’ . . . Inasmuch as the principal purpose of requiring corroborative evidence is the ‘avoidance of baseless accusations,’ such evidence will suffice ‘. . . when it would permit the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim’s [341]*341account of the crime was not a fabrication.’ [Citations omitted.]
See also Moore v. United States, D.C.App., 306 A.2d 278 (1973); Coltrane v. United States, 135 U.S.App.D.C. 295, 418 F.2d 1131 (1969).
It is basic that upon consideration of a motion for a judgment of acquittal the trial judge must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and then make a judgment
whether upon the evidence, giving full play to the right of the jury to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable inferences of fact, a reasonable mind might fairly conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . [Curley v. United States, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 389, 392, 160 F.2d 229, 232, cert. denied, 331 U.S. 837, 67 S.Ct. 1511, 91 L.Ed. 1850 (1947).]
See also Crawford v. United States, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 156, 158, 375 F.2d 332, 334 (1967). Because, in our view, the testimony of the two women was not inherently incredibile, we cannot say as a matter of law that no reasonable mind could have fairly concluded from the totality of the evidence (1) that the first victim submitted after she was threatened with death and told, “You can’t run, and you can’t holler, because nobody will hear you”, and (2) that the second victim submitted after she was threatened repeatedly with serious bodily harm, seized by the throat and told that if she screamed she would be killed.
Consequently, we hold that the motion for a judgment of acquittal was properly denied. See Johnson v. United States, supra. See also United States v. Bolden, 514 F.2d 1301 (D.C.Cir.1975); Crawford v. United States, supra.
B. The trial court’s refusal to give the required instruction.
By its refusal to give the instruction on corroboration mandated by the case law of this jurisdiction the trial court defied established precedent5 which, of course, was error. But, in our opinion, this calculated error was not of constitutional proportions.6 Moreover, we have found nothing in the record which gives us reason to believe that the jury would have been influenced to a different result had the instruction been given. See Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946).
The command of D.C.Code 1973, § 11-721(e) is that we disregard any noncon-stitutional error which does not affect a substantial right of the accused. See in this connection Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371, 92 S.Ct. 2174, 33 L.Ed.2d 1 (1972); Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 92 S.Ct. 1056, 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969); Hawkins v. United States, D.C.App., 304 A.2d 279 (1973); United States v. Lee, 160 U.S.App.D.C. 118, 489 F.2d 1242 (1973). As the court observed in United States v. Compagna, 146 F.2d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 1944), cert. denied, 324 U.S. 867, 65 S.Ct. 912, 89 L.Ed. 1422 (1945):
[W]hile lapses should be closely scrutinized, when it appears with certainty that no harm has been done, it would be the merest pedantry to insist upon procedural regularity. .
[342]*342See also People v. Rincon-Pineda, 14 Cal.3d 864, 123 Cal.Rptr. 119, 538 P.2d 247 (1975), a case directly on point in which the court sustained a conviction for rape holding that the trial court’s refusal to give the required instruction on corroboration was harmless error where:
“the evidence clearly points to the defendant’s guilt, or the testimony of the prosecuting witness is amply corroborated, or there are other factors in the case which show that the defendant has been given a fair trial.” [Id., 123 Cal.Rptr. at 125, 538 P.2d at 253.]
Satisfied that appellant had a fair and impartial trial and that the trial court’s refusal to give the required instruction did not affect any substantial right, we conclude that the error was harmless. Schneble v. Florida, supra.
Nevertheless, the government terming the corroboration requirement an irrational and anachronistic concept, would have this court abrogate it in the District of Columbia court system.
In People v. Rincon-Pineda, supra, reversible error was claimed because of the trial court’s refusal to give the cautionary instruction mandated by California case law in sex cases.7 The California Supreme Court first traced the origin of the instruction to dicta in the writings of Sir Matthew Hale, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench, 1671-1676, and the development of the concept in California law concluding that:
[W]e find nothing in Hale’s writings to suggest that, as a matter of course, juries should be instructed that those who claim to be victims of sexual offenses are presumptively entitled to less credence than those who testify as the alleged victims of other crimes. The credibility of a witness, by Hale’s lights as by ours, is to be determined by the circumstances of the alleged crime and the narration of it by the witness, and these circumstances vary markedly from case to case. [Id., 123 Cal.Rptr. at 128, 538 P.2d at 256.]
Comparing the position of a defendant charged with a sex offense in the United States today with that of one so charged in 17th century England, the court pointed out:
The fundamental precepts of due process, that an accused is presumed innocent and is to be acquitted unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt . . . were recognized as desiderata in Hale’s era but had yet to crystallize into rights. The rights of an accused to present witnesses in his defense and to compel their attendance, subsequently enshrined in the Sixth Amendment, were barely nascent in the 17th century. . Most importantly of all, in the context of a rape case, one accused of a felony in Hale’s day had no right whatsoever to the assistance of counsel while today he is constitutionally entitled to such assistance regardless of his personal means .... [Citations omitted.] {Id., 123 Cal.Rptr. at 128, 538 P.2d at 256-57.]
The court then disapproved any further use of the cautionary instruction in California sex cases, saying:
Whatever might have been its historical significance, the disapproved instruction now performs no just function, since criminal charges involving sexual conduct are no more easily made or harder to defend against than many other classes of charges, and those who make such accusations should be deemed no more suspect in credibility than any other class [343]*343of complainants. When such prosecutions present close evidentiary questions, they do so not because a victim' — generally a woman — claims to have been sexually assaulted or abused, but because the alleged crime took place in evanescent circumstances difficult to reconstruct in court, a happenstance which may plague prosecution of any crime involving specific intent, and which is indeed a typical occurrence in such non-sexual crimes as fraud and narcotics transactions. A cautionary instruction bred in the circumstances of 17th century criminal rape and criminal justice need not be disinterred in a contemporary . . . courtroom in order to insure that a defendant faced essentially by a single accuser will not be casually convicted without due consideration of the relative weight of the evidence. [Id., 123 Cal.Rptr. at 132, 538 P.2d at 260.]
Of course, as we pointed out above, the rule of decision in the District of Columbia has been that any such case be submitted to the jury with specific instructions requiring a finding of independent evidence corroborative of the victim’s testimony as a condition precedent to a guilty verdict. We notice, in this connection, that such a requirement was unknown to the common law8 and that the courts of this jurisdiction have never stated nor assumed that it stemmed from any constitutional or statutory provisions.9 See D.C. Code 1973, § 49-301.
Because of the adequacy of the constitutional protections available to every defendant in a sex case, we are persuaded that the requirement of corroboration of the victims’ testimony presently serves no legitimate purpose. As Dean Wigmore has pointed out:
. a rule of law requiring corroboration has probably little actual influence upon the jurors’ minds over and above the ordinary caution and suspicion which would naturally suggest itself for such charges; and the rule thus tends to become in practice merely a means of securing from the trial judge the utterance of a form of words which may chance to be erroneous and to lay the foundation for a new trial. Finally, the purpose of the rule is already completely attained by the judge’s power to set aside a verdict upon insufficient evidence, and under this power verdicts are constantly set aside, in jurisdictions having no statutory rule, upon the same evidence which in other jurisdictions would be insufficient under the statutory rule requiring corroboration.
The fact is that, in the light of modern psychology, this technical rule of corroboration seems but a crude and childish measure, if it be relied upon as an adequate means for determining the credibility of the complaining witness in such charges. ... [7 Wigmore, Evidence § 2061 at 354 (3d ed. 1940).]
See in addition, Report of the District of Columbia Public Safety Committee Task Force on Rape (July 9, 1973), at 51-5. Note, The Rape Corroboration Requirement: Repeal not Reform, 81 Yale L.J. 1365 (1972). Report and Proposals Regarding Rape and Rape Victims in the Dis[344]*344trict of Columbia (Dec. 16, 1974), at 21-3. Rape and Rape Laws: Sexism in Society and Law, 61 Calif.L.Rev. 919 (1973). See also the expression of congressional concern in the “Criminal Justice Codification, Revision and Reform Act of 1974”, introduced by the 93d Cong., 1st Sess. as S. 1. By Sec. 1646(a) of that bill, it is provided that in certain enumerated sex cases, including rape, “proof beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient for conviction. Corroboration of the victim’s testimony is not required.”
We reject, therefore, the notion given currency so long in this jurisdiction, that the victim of rape and other sex related offenses is so presumptively lacking in credence that corroboration of her testimony is required to withstand a motion for a judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, we mandate that in the future no instruction directed specifically to the credibility of any mature female victim of rape or its lesser included offenses and the necessity for corroboration of her testimony shall be required or given in the trial of any such case in the District of Columbia court system.
While we abrogate the requirement in future rape and lesser included sex related cases, insofar as mature females may be involved, we caution that crucial in the trial of any such ease is the issue of credibility particularly when there is a claim of provoked or consentaneous participation. See Johnson v. United States, supra.
In the cases at bar the jury was instructed on the issue of credibility in the language of the Criminal Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia, 2d Ed., D.C. Bar Ass’n (1972) Instruction 2.11, Credibility of Witnesses, with modifications deemed appropriate by the trial court. The substance of that instruction should be given with such elaboration as may be indicated as a bare minimum in future sex cases. Johnson v. United States, supra.
See also People v. Rincon-Pineda, supra.
Appellant urges, however, on the authority of a concurring opinion in United States v. Wiley, 160 U.S.App.D.C. 281, 492 F.2d 547 (1973), that if the corroboration rule is to be changed, the responsibility for making the change should be exclusively with the Congress.10 But the short answer to this is, as we have pointed out, the requirement is neither the creature of the common law nor of the Congress. It was judicially imposed and we know of no good reason why, in exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction, we should not now purge from our jurisprudence the requirement and all of its demeaning implications.
In view of these dispositions of the corroboration issues, we need not pass upon appellant’s challenge to the jury verdicts11 except to say as did the court in Johnson v. United States, supra, 138 U.S.App.D.C. at 178, 426 F.2d at 655:
It is a rare case indeed, when twelve jurors believe and the trial judge who also saw and heard, fails to exercise his power to set the verdict aside, that an appellate court ought to intervene. That authority is a reserve power to be used only to prevent manifest injustice. . [Emphasis in original.]
Affirmed.