Williams v. United States

357 A.2d 865, 1976 D.C. App. LEXIS 287

Opinions

FICKLING, Associate Judge:

This is an appeal from appellant’s jury trial conviction for carnal knowledge in violation of D.C.Code 1973, § 22-2801. The main issue on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.¹ Appellant contends there was insufficient evidence of penetration o'f complainant’s sexual organs to sustain his conviction for carnal knowledge. We have concluded that the evidence was sufficient to warrant submission of the case to the jury, and we affirm.

Complainant is the eldest of five children ; at the time of the offense, she was 8 years old. Appellant is the common-law husband of- complainant’s mother.. Although appellant did not father any of the children, he had been living with complainant’s mother and the children for five years.

At about noon on December 24, 1973, complainant’s mother left the house to do some last-minute Christmas shopping. Appellant remained in the house with the five children. Complainant testified that after her mother had left the house, appellant told her to “come upstairs,” where he took her into her brothers’ bedroom and closed the door. Appellant pulled down complainant’s slacks and panties and put her on one of the two beds in the room. Appellant then removed his own pants. According to the girl, appellant got behind her on the bed and “put his ding-a-ling . . . in [her] back.”² Complainant further testified that she had felt appellant’s penis inside her; it hurt her and she began to cry. Appellant persisted until he was interrupted by complainant’s mother, who, upon entering the bedroom, pulled the girl from the bed.

Complainant’s mother testified that when she returned from shopping, one of the children told her that appellant and complainant had gone upstairs. She went upstairs to the bedroom and opened the door. As she entered the room, she saw appellant having intercourse with her ’daughter. The girl was on her side facing the door, and appellant was behind her on the bed.³ She took complainant from the bed and shortly thereafter called the police.

Complainant was taken to D.C. General Hospital where a doctor attempted to examine her. She was distraught and refused to allow the doctor to perform the examination. A week later, however, complainant was taken to Children’s Hospital where she was examined by Dr. Jeffrey Kline.⁴

Dr. Kline testified that complainant’s genitals had no lacerations and looked reasonably normal. Her hymen, however, was not intact. Dr. Kline’s examination also revealed that a small amount of blood was “at the right of the beginning of the vagina and the rectum.” The rectum appeared normal.

Although penetration of the victim’s sexual organs is an essential element of the crime of carnal knowledge, the government need not prove full penetration since the offense is committed if the male organ enters only the labia of the female organs. Moreover, direct medical evidence of penetration is not required; penetration of the female organs may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Holmes v. United States, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 168, 171 F.2d 1022 (1948).

To withstand a motion for judgment of acquittal, the government must produce only that quantum of evidence by which a reasonable person could find guilt beyond á reasonable doubt. It is only where there is no evidence upon which a reasonable mind might fairly conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court may properly take the case from the jury. Smith v. United States, D.C.App., 343 A.2d 40 (1975); Borrero v. United States, D.C.App., 332 A.2d 363 (1975). Moreover, the evidence adduced at trial must be reviewed in a light most favorable to the government, making allowance for the fact finder’s right to determine the credibility of the witnesses and draw justifiable inferences from their testimony. Kenhan v. United States, D.C.App., 263 A.2d 253 (1970).

There was abundant evidence in the instant case to withstand a motion for judgment of acquittal. Complainant’s mother testified that when she entered the bedroom she saw appellant having intercourse with her daughter. Appellant was behind the girl on the bed and, when she pulled her daughter away from appellant, she saw his erect penis emerge from someplace behind the little girl.

Complainant testified that appellant “put his ding-a-ling ... in [her] back” and that she felt his penis inside her. Although the little girl subsequently testified that appellant had put his penis “in the place where you go to dodo,” an eight-year-old girl usually lacks the knowledge and experience sufficient to enable her to testify precisely on the details of penetration. A medical examination of the little girl conducted a week after the incident revealed a slight amount of blood near the opening of the vagina. Her hymen was not intact, although her rectum was normal. The evidence was sufficient to warrant the inference that penetration of her sexual organs had been accomplished by appellant. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, and the case was properly submitted to the jury.

Affirmed.

Footnotes

1

. Since the jury found the defendant guilty of carnal knowledge, we find no prejudicial error in the court’s, giving the rape instruction in addition to the camal- knowledge instruction. ■

2

. When subsequently asked to clarify where appellant had put -his penis, complainant testified that appellant had put his penis in “the place where you go to dodo.”

3

.Complainant’s mother initially testified that she saw appellant’s erect penis emerge from complainant’s vagina. After further questioning, however, she testified that--she had not actually seen, appellant’s penis emerge from the girl’s vagina and stated, instead, that it came out of someplace behind complainant.

4

. Although Dr. Kline, at the time of complainant’s examination, had graduated from the University of Maryland Medical School and was a resident in pediatrics at Children’s Hospital, and, at the time of trial, was licensed to practice medicine and was a fellow in pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, the trial judge would not permit him to testify as an expert because at the time of complainant’s examination he was not licensed to practice medicine.