In State ex rel. Dickerson v. Tokstad, 139 Or. 63 ( 8 P.2d 86), the essence of these decisions was summed up thus: "It is well settled in this state that a proceeding authorized by the statutes under which this prosecution was had, although criminal in form, is not a criminal prosecution but is a special statutory proceeding in the nature of a civil action to enforce a civil obligation or duty, and that since the nature of the proceeding is civil, the proof is to be governed by the rules of evidence which apply in civil cases, and hence that the paternity of the child need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt, but may be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, and that it is not necessary that the jury shall return a unanimous verdict; that a verdict concurred in by nine of its members is sufficient."
Error is assigned because the child — then two months old — was exhibited to the jury by the mother while she was on the witness stand. While the authorities are in conflict in other jurisdictions (see cases in note 40 A.L.R. 97) this court has unqualifiedly placed its stamp of approval upon the admission of such evidence: Anderson v. Aupperle, 51 Or. 556 ( 95 P. 330); State v. Russell, 64 Or. 247 ( 129 P. 1051); State ex rel. Dickerson v. Tokstad, 139 Or. 63 ( 8 P.2d 86). We quite agree with appellant that part of the instructions given relative to corroboration were erroneous. If there were any doubt in our minds relative to the guilt of the defendant, such assignment would result in reversal.
But there must be a sufficient amount of confirmation to satisfy the jury of the truth of her testimony, so that the case shall not rest upon her credibility alone, however credible her testimony may be * * *.State ex rel. S., 17 Or.App. at 393, 521 P.2d at 1319 (quoting State ex rel. Dickerson v. Tokstad, 139 Or. 63, 67, 8 P.2d 86, 88 (1932)). In Thom v. Bailey, 257 Or. 572, 481 P.2d 355 (1970), Thom brought a proceeding to determine heirship in which she alleged that she was the illegitimate daughter of the deceased, James Elliott, and was entitled to inherit his entire estate.
The corroborating evidence must tend to verify the claimant's version of the facts. See State v. Tokstad, 139 Or. 63, 8 P.2d 86 (1932). Plaintiff lastly assigns as error the finding of the trial court that defendant had complied with the notice provisions of the statute and insurance policy.
No other sort of corroboration is required. State v. Flitton, 52 Idaho 374, 15 P.2d 397; State ex rel. Dickerson v. Tokstad, 139 Or. 63, 8 P.2d 86, 88; Bowersox v. Bowersox, 157 Md. 476, 146 A. 266, 267, 65 A.L.R. 165. It is not necessary that there be any direct evidence of the facts constituting the crime, other than that of the prosecutrix.
7 Am. Jur., Bastards, section 49. This court, however, has given its approval to the exhibition of a child — even a very young infant — to a jury upon a disputed question of paternity, and has recognized the physiological fact that peculiarities of form, features and personal traits are often transmitted from parent to child. State v. Russell, 64 Or. 247, 250, 129 P. 1051; State ex rel. Dickerson v. Tokstad, 139 Or. 63, 8 P.2d 86; State ex rel. v. Bartlett, 141 Or. 560, 18 P.2d 590; Anderson v. Aupperle, 51 Or. 556, 95 P. 330. The respondent's mother divorced her husband, Pugh, upon a complaint charging him with desertion and abandonment commencing in September, 1887, and continuing thereafter.
This rule as to the character of evidence required by the statute, thus clearly and fully expounded by Mr. Justice HARRIS, has been stated and applied in many other Oregon decisions, both before and since State v. Brake, supra. State v. Odell, 8 Or. 30; State v. Townsend, 19 Or. 213, 23 P. 968; State v. Jarvis, 18 Or. 360, 23 P. 251; State v. Scott, 28 Or. 331, 337, 42 P. 1; State v. Kelliher, 49 Or. 77, 88 P. 867; State v. Wong Si Sam, 63 Or. 266, 275, 127 P. 683; State v. Turnbow, 99 Or. 270, 279, 193 P. 485, 195 P. 569, in which Mr. Justice BROWN reviewed the previous holdings of the court; State v. Brown, 113 Or. 149, 155, 231 P. 926; State v. Lil Tranchell, 119 Or. 329, 331, 249 P. 367; State v. Haynes, 120 Or. 573, 578, 253 P. 7; State ex rel. Dickerson v. Tokstad, 139 Or. 63, 67, 8 P.2d 86; State v. Young, 140 Or. 288, 239, 13 P.2d 604. In State v. Scott, supra, the court quoted ( 28 Or. 337) the following from Roscoe's Criminal Evidence (13th Ed.) 110:
This testimony was sufficient to meet the requirement of the statute. State v. Tokstad, 139 Or. 63, 8 P.2d 86 (1932); State ex rel S. v. V., 17 Or. App. 392, 521 P.2d 1319 (1974)." 32 Or App at 262.
This testimony was sufficient to meet the requirement of the statute. State v. Tokstad, 139 Or. 63, 8 P.2d 86 (1932); State ex rel S. v. V., 17 Or. App. 392, 521 P.2d 1319 (1974). ORS 109.155(1) provides:
However, the Oregon Supreme Court has consistently held without qualification that in cases such as this it is proper to display to the jury even extremely young infants. State v. Morrow, 158 Or. 412, 75 P.2d 737, 76 P.2d 971 (1938); State ex rel. v. Bartlett, 141 Or. 560, 18 P.2d 590 (1933); State v. Tokstad, 139 Or. 63, 8 P.2d 86 (1932). See, In re Rowe's Estate, 172 Or. 293, 141 P.2d 832 (1943).