People v. Vickroy (1919) · DecisionDepot

People v. Vickroy

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal May 26, 1919 No. Crim. No. 649.Published

Before: Shaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant may be convicted of statutory rape based on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix and that the appellate court will not weigh conflicting evidence or assess witness credibility.

Issues

Whether the uncorroborated testimony of a prosecutrix is sufficient to sustain a conviction for statutory rape.
Whether the appellate court has the authority to weigh conflicting evidence or determine witness credibility.
Whether the district attorney's remarks constituted prejudicial misconduct requiring reversal.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is a rule of evidence in this state that in a prosecution for rape the defendant may be convicted upon the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecuting witness.”

“this court when considering cases on appeal is not empowered to weigh conflicting evidence or pass upon the credibility of witnesses.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County, and from an order denying a new trial. J. A. Allen, Judge. Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

SHAW, J.

Defendant was charged with and convicted of the crime of rape, alleged to have been committed upon a female under the age of eighteen years. Judgment of

[277]

imprisonment followed, from which and an order denying his motion for a new trial he has appealed.

Counsel for appellant, claiming the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict, devote much of their argument, not to showing a want of sufficient evidence, but to a discussion of the weight which they claim should have been accorded the testimony of the respective parties.

[1]

As we have so often said, but apparently without purpose, this court when considering cases on appeal is not empowered to weigh conflicting evidence or pass upon the credibility of witnesses.

[2]

On this point, suffice it to say, that the jury, whose province it was to weigh and determine the value of the evidence touching the fact in dispute, heard the direct and positive testimony of the prosecutrix, a girl some twelve or thirteen years of age. If true, it proves conclusively that defendant was guilty of the crime charged. Notwithstanding his denial and testimony tending to establish an alibi, the jury, under proper instructions as to the law applicable, found him guilty, thus, when compared with evidence offered on behalf of defendant, showing its belief in the truth of her testimony. The fact that she was contradicted by defendant, or even though she told conflicting stories, raises no question of law for the determination in this court on appeal.

[3]

In this connection appellant insists that, since there was no evidence offered in corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix (which fact, for the purposes of this case, may be conceded), it, standing alone, even if believed by the jury, was insufficient to justify the verdict. In other words, he claims that as a matter of law the testimony of one upon whom a statutory rape has been committed, unless corroborated, will not warrant the conviction of the accused. We do not so understand the law; indeed, the contrary is held in

People v. Vickroy

AI Brief

Synopsis

SHAW, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief