BOYD v. STATE

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 41662.

Attorney(S)

Reeves, Brumfield Reeves, McComb, for appellant. I. The evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. Cobb v. State, 233 Miss. 54, 101 So.2d 110; Davis v. State, 132 Miss. 448, 96 So. 307; Holifield v. State, 132 Miss. 446, 96 So. 306; Johnson v. State, 213 Miss. 808, 58 So.2d 6; Richardson v. State, 196 Miss. 560, 17 So.2d 799; Rogers v. State, 204 Miss. 891, 36 So.2d 155; Upton v. State, 192 Miss. 339, 6 So.2d 130. II. The lower court committed prejudicial error in allowing Wayne Lambert to testify over objection that Paulette Davis told him appellant had "bothered her". Anderson v. State, 82 Miss. 784, 35 So. 202; Ashford v. State, 81 Miss. 414, 33 So. 174; Barnes v. State, 164 Miss. 126, 143 So. 475; Character v. State, 212 Miss. 30, 53 So.2d 41; Clark v. State, 124 Miss. 841, 87 So. 286; Conn v. State, 228 Miss. 833, 89 So.2d 840; Frost v. State, 100 Miss. 796, 57 So. 221; Lauderdale v. State, 227 Miss. 113, 85 So.2d 822; Lewis v. State, 183 Miss. 192, 184 So. 53; Redding v. State, 211 Miss. 855, 53 So.2d 7; 20 Am. Jur., Sec. 570 p. 483; 44 Am. Jur., Sec. 83 p. 953; 22 C.J.S., Sec. 734 p. 1258. G. Garland Lyell, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. I. The evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction. II. The lower court committed no error in allowing Wayne Lambert to testify that prosecutrix told him appellant had "bothered her". Boutwell v. State, 165 Miss. 16, 143 So. 479; Butler v. State, 217 Miss. 750, 65 So.2d 244; Collins v. State, 173 Miss. 179, 159 So. 865; Gillespie v. State, 212 Miss. 380, 61 So.2d 150; Harris v. State, 153 Miss. 1, 120 So. 206; Holloway v. State, 199 Miss. 356, 24 So.2d 857; Johnson v. State, 196 Miss. 402, 17 So.2d 446; Kimbrall v. State, 178 Miss. 701, 174 So. 47; Pepper v. State, 200 Miss. 891, 27 So.2d 842; Pruitt v. State, 163 Miss. 47, 139 So. 861; State v. Goering, 200 Miss. 585, 28 So.2d 248; Thurmond v. State, 212 Miss. 36, 53 So.2d 44; Williams v. State, 171 Miss. 324, 157 So. 717; 53 Am. Jur., Trial, Sec. 146; 88 C.J.S., Sec. 122 p. 245.

Judges

ARRINGTON, J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

BOYD v. STATE.

1. Rape — evidence — conviction for rape of eleven-year-old girl — affirmed.

Evidence sustained conviction for rape of eleven-year-old girl.

2. Criminal law — rape — overruling defendant's objection to testimony of witness as to an accusatory statement made by prosecutrix not prejudicial error.

In rape prosecution, Court did not err in overruling defendant's objection to testimony of witness as to an accusatory statement made by prosecutrix shortly after alleged crime was committed, but if there were error, such error was not prejudicial.

Headnotes as approved by Arrington, J.

ARRINGTON, J.

The appellant, John Boyd, was convicted of the crime of rape of a female child of eleven years of age, and was sentenced to serve life imprisonment in the State penitentiary, from which judgment he appeals.

(Hn 1) The first assignment of error argued is that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. We have carefully examined this record and we are of the opinion that it would serve no purpose to set out the details. The appellant admits that someone committed the crime of rape, but contends that some other party was guilty. The testimony of the prosecutrix was that the appellant raped her. Although her evidence does not need corroboration, there were other facts that support her testimony. We are of the opinion that the evidence was ample to sustain the jury's verdict.

(Hn 2) The appellant next assigns as error the action of the trial court in overruling appellant's objection made to the testimony of the witness Lambert as to an accusatory statement made by prosecutrix shortly after the alleged crime was committed. We have carefully considered this assignment in the light of the entire record and we are all of the opinion that this was not error. Moreover, if it was error, we are confident that it did not prejudice the appellant.

Affirmed.

McGehee, C.J., and Ethridge, Gillespie and McElroy, JJ., concur.

BOYD v. STATE.

Comments