From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Glispy

Supreme Court of Utah
Dec 14, 1959
347 P.2d 562 (Utah 1959)

Opinion

No. 9116.

December 14, 1959.

Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District Court, Utah County, Maurice Harding, J.

Cullen Y. Christenson, Provo, for appellants.

Walter L. Budge, Atty. Gen., Vernon B. Romney, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.


This is an appeal by Danny Glispy and James Hallam from convictions by a jury of rape.

They contend: (1) that the court committed prejudicial error in allowing the doctor who examined the prosecutrix, a 15-year-old girl, to testify that an examination showed that the girl's hymen had been recently torn and that the tears were fresh and still bleeding; and that a hymen which is intact normally indicates virginity. And (2) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdicts.

There is no merit to either contention. It would serve no useful purpose to relate the sordid details. Suffice it to say that the record discloses there was ample evidence to sustain the jury's verdict and the court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict of not guilty. Neither did the court err in admitting the doctor's evidence because such evidence would be material as a surrounding circumstance of the crime and as having a tendency to prove that she was violated. State v. Scott and State v. Jameson cited by appellants as authority for the proposition that it is immaterial and therefore error to admit evidence of chastity in prosecutions for rape do not so hold. The Scott case merely holds that it was not error to refuse to admit evidence of unchastity because it was irrelevant where the defense of the accused was that he at no time had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and the evidence was not offered for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of the prosecutrix. The Jameson case was one where the accused was charged with the crime of carnal knowledge, and the court's instruction that in such crime chastity or lack of it in the prosecutrix would be immaterial was held to be correct.

State v. Scott, 55 Utah 553, 188 P. 860 and State v. Jameson, 103 Utah 129, 134 P.2d 173.

Affirmed.

CROCKETT, C.J., and HENRIOD, McDONOUGH, and CALLISTER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Glispy

Supreme Court of Utah
Dec 14, 1959
347 P.2d 562 (Utah 1959)
Case details for

State v. Glispy

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF UTAH, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, v. DANNY GLISPY AND JAMES HALLAM…

Court:Supreme Court of Utah

Date published: Dec 14, 1959

Citations

347 P.2d 562 (Utah 1959)
10 Utah 2