Opinion
No. 28934.
October 6, 1930.
1. RAPE.
In prosecution for assault with intent to rape, particulars of prosecutrix's complaint soon after assault, as narrated, are inadmissible.
2. CRIMINAL LAW.
Admitting testimony in rape prosecution showing prosecutrix when making complaint stated she was out with defendant, if error, held harmless, where defendant admitted such fact.
APPEAL from circuit court of Coahoma county, Second district. HON.W.A. ALCORN, JR., Judge.
Greek P. Rice, Jr., of Clarksdale, for appellant.
Ordinarily any and all statements made by a party assaulted after the commission of the crime is hearsay, and not admissible. An exception is made in the case of rape alone, but even in that case no statements made by the prosecutrix are admissible except her complaint that she had been ravished. The details of the transaction, the name of the party accused, the place where it is said to have occurred, the time of the alleged offense cannot be proven by the repetition of the words of the prosecutrix.
Frost v. State, 100 Miss. 798; Anderson v. State, 35 So. 202, 203.
In a prosecution for assault with intent to rape, a third party to whom the prosecuting witness reports the commission of the crime is not permitted to testify as to the details reported to her nor the identity of the assailant.
Clark v. State, 124 Miss. 841; Ashford v. State, 81 Miss. 414; Anderson v. State, 84 Miss. 784; Dickey v. State, 86 Miss. 525; Jefferies v. State, 89 Miss. 643; 22 R.C.L. sections 75-6-7, page 1235.
Edwin R. Holmes, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
The prosecuting witness may state whether or not she made complaint to anyone as to the commission of the alleged crime in cases of this nature, but she may not state the details of what she told such third party, and third party may not testify as to the details of the alleged crime as related to such party by the prosecutrix but may testify only as to whether or not the prosecutrix reported the event.
Frost v. State, 94 Miss. 104, 47 So. 898; Clark v. State, 124 Miss. 841, 87 So. 286.
Appellant was indicted and convicted in the circuit court of Coahoma county of the crime of an attempt to rape, and was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of three years. From that judgment appellant prosecutes this appeal.
Appellant contends that the court should have granted his request for a directed verdict of not guilty, because of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the charge. We think the evidence was sufficient.
Over appellant's objection the court permitted an aunt of the injured female to testify that the latter complained to her of the assault soon after it occurred. The witness did not testify as to the particulars of the complaint, but to the mere fact that complaint was made; and over appellant's objection the prosecuting witness was permitted to testify that she made complaint to her aunt about what had happened, and told her that she had been out with appellant. The witness was asked: "I will ask you to state, Emma, if you reported to your auntie at the time you were brought there on that evening what had happened to you. State yes or no." To which the witness replied: "Yes, sir, I told her." And the witness was asked this question: "I ask you to state yes or no, Emma, if you told your auntie at the time you arrived there who, if anyone, you had been out with?" To which the witness answered: "Sheridan."
In a prosecution for assault with intent to rape, it is competent for the state to show that the prosecuting witness complained soon after the assault, but the particulars of the complaint and offense, as narrated by her, are not admissible in evidence. Frost v. State, 94 Miss. 104, 47 So. 898; Clark v. State, 124 Miss. 841, 87 So. 286. Under the rule laid down in those cases, the court properly overruled appellant's objection to the testimony of these two witnesses. If it was error (we do not decide the question, because it is unnecessary) to permit the prosecuting witness' aunt to testify that in making complaint to her soon after the assault, the prosecuting witness stated that she was out with the appellant, the latter was not harmed thereby, because, on the trial, he testified as a witness in his own behalf, admitting that he was the person who was out with the prosecuting witness at the time of the alleged assault.
Affirmed.