State v. Straight

West Virginia Supreme Court

State v. Straight

135 S.E. 163, 102 W. Va. 361, 1926 W. Va. LEXIS 37

CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 12, 1926

Docket5648

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 135 S.E. 163 (State v. Straight) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Straight, 135 S.E. 163, 102 W. Va. 361, 1926 W. Va. LEXIS 37 (W. Va. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Litz, President :

The defendant was convicted in.the criminal court of Marion county June 18, 1925, and sentenced to serve a term *362 of eighteen years' in the penitentiary, upon an indictment Charging him with the rape of a ten year old child.

The crime is alleged to have been committed at the home of defendant in the town of Mannington. The case of the State was established by the testimony of the prosecuting witness and two physicians who examined her on the evening of the occurrence. The defendant denied any improper relations with the child, but admitted that she was in his house at the time the offens'e is alleged to have been committed.

As one of the numerous grounds of error complained of, it is charged that the trial court improperly permitted certain witnesses to relate statements made by the prosecutrix to them several hours after the attack, involving the details of the offense. It appears that one witness was permitted so to testify. According to the weight of authority, including the holdings of this Court, it is reversible error to admit in a trial for rape the extra-judicial statement of the prosecuting witness naming the accused and detailing the particulars of the crime; unless made under sHch circumstances as to constitute part of the res gestae, or offered for the purpose of corroborating the prosecuting witness when her testimony has been impeached. Neither of these exceptions applies to this case. It is proper to show, as corroborative testimony, the fact that prosecutrix made complaint of the outrage soon after its commission, but the particulars and the name of the person alleged to have committed the act should be excluded. State v. Harrison, 98 W. Va. 227; State v. Peck, 90 W. Va. 272; Brogy v. Commonwealth, 10 Gratt. (Va.) 722; 33 Cyc. p. 1463.

It is with extreme reluctance that we have decided to re-leerse the judgment complained of, and do so only under constraint of a salutary rule of evidence invoked by the defendant. It is1 exceedingly unfortunate that the prosecuting attorney and the trial court failed to observe the recent decisions of this Court, as well as the general law defining the rule of evidence under consideration.

*363 Many of the other errors assigned are based upon alleged rulings of the court not disclosed by the record. The remaining ones are without basis' in law.

The judgment is reversed, the verdict of the jury set aside, and a new trial awarded the defendant.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Litz, President :

The defendant was convicted in.the criminal court of Marion county June 18, 1925, and sentenced to serve a term *362 of eighteen years' in the penitentiary, upon an indictment Charging him with the rape of a ten year old child.

The crime is alleged to have been committed at the home of defendant in the town of Mannington. The case of the State was established by the testimony of the prosecuting witness and two physicians who examined her on the evening of the occurrence. The defendant denied any improper relations with the child, but admitted that she was in his house at the time the offens'e is alleged to have been committed.

As one of the numerous grounds of error complained of, it is charged that the trial court improperly permitted certain witnesses to relate statements made by the prosecutrix to them several hours after the attack, involving the details of the offense. It appears that one witness was permitted so to testify. According to the weight of authority, including the holdings of this Court, it is reversible error to admit in a trial for rape the extra-judicial statement of the prosecuting witness naming the accused and detailing the particulars of the crime; unless made under sHch circumstances as to constitute part of the res gestae, or offered for the purpose of corroborating the prosecuting witness when her testimony has been impeached. Neither of these exceptions applies to this case. It is proper to show, as corroborative testimony, the fact that prosecutrix made complaint of the outrage soon after its commission, but the particulars and the name of the person alleged to have committed the act should be excluded. State v. Harrison, 98 W. Va. 227; State v. Peck, 90 W. Va. 272; Brogy v. Commonwealth, 10 Gratt. (Va.) 722; 33 Cyc. p. 1463.

It is with extreme reluctance that we have decided to re-leerse the judgment complained of, and do so only under constraint of a salutary rule of evidence invoked by the defendant. It is1 exceedingly unfortunate that the prosecuting attorney and the trial court failed to observe the recent decisions of this Court, as well as the general law defining the rule of evidence under consideration.

*363 Many of the other errors assigned are based upon alleged rulings of the court not disclosed by the record. The remaining ones are without basis' in law.

The judgment is reversed, the verdict of the jury set aside, and a new trial awarded the defendant.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 S.E. 163, 102 W. Va. 361, 1926 W. Va. LEXIS 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-straight-wva-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack