Gilmore v. StateGilmore v. State
- Reporters:
- , , , ,
- Before:
- Lane
OPINION
LANE, Judge:Rоnnie Gilmore, Sr., appellant, was tried by jury and convicted for the crime of Rape in the First Degree (
Appellant raises two propositions of error: (1) that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that rape accomplished by threat of force or violence to a third party is rape in the first degree; and (2) insufficiency of the evidencе. We affirm the judgment and sentence.
This case arises from an incident in which the appellant threatened to beat up the boyfriеnd of his eighteen year old daughter if she refused to have sexual intercourse with him. Following the threat appellant accomplished sexual penetration of his daughter on the back porch of his home.
We will first address the issue of first impression: Whether rape accomplished by force or threat of force to a third party is rape in the first or second degree. The controlling statutes are
3. Where force or violence is used or threatened, accompanied by apparent power of execution to the victim or to another person;
3. rape accomplished with any person by the means of force, violence, or threats of force or violence accompanied by apparеnt power of execution;
Appellant argues rape accomplished by the threat of force or violence against a persоn who is not the victim of the rape must be rape in the second degree, for it is not specifically provided for in
... the inclusion of “to another person” in the 1981 amendments to section 111(4) and its exclusiоn in the types of rape which are denominated rape in the first degree insection 1114(A)(3) could logically lead to the conclusion that thе Legislature intended a violation of this provision to be rape in the second degree. The Court of Criminal Appeals will have to decide this issue in an appropriate case.
The State asserts, and we agree, this is the appropriate case in which to decide the issue.
Under
We find no evidence to suggest the Legislature intended to exclude rape accomplished by threat of force or violenсe to another from its definition of rape in the first degree. Indeed, the Legislature plainly focused on the act of the perрetrator who threatens force or violence when defining rape in the first degree. Where the Legislature has made no distinctiоn based on the intended victim of the threat, neither should we. Rape accomplished by threat of force or violence tо a person other than the rape victim which is accompanied by the apparent power of execution is rape in the first degree. The trial court correctly instructed the jury.
Appellant also argues his daughter’s testimony was inadmissible absent corrоboration, and thus insufficient evidence was introduced at trial to support the conviction. R.A.G. testified that sometime between her birthdаy on December 3, and Christmas in 1987 she was visiting her father in the home he shared with his mother, and she called her boyfriend to pick her up. After the boyfriend arrived with another boy, her father, the appellant, beckoned her to join him in the kitchen. He asked her to “give him another сhance” which she interpreted to mean to allow him to have sexual relations with her. He threatened to beat up her boyfriend if she did not submit. After R.A.G. asked how they could do this with others in the home the appellant sent the boys out to buy beer and sent his mother to her roоm. He then walked out to the back porch and R.A.G. followed. He pulled down his pants; she pulled down hers and they began to have sexuаl intercourse. When R.A.G.’s boyfriend returned shortly thereafter, she pushed herself away and went into the bathroom. She then left with her boyfriend. Two mоnth’s later she reported the incident. She also testified the appellant had forced sexual relations with her since she was ten years old.
Appellant testified and denied the allegations. He stated R.A.G. beckoned him into
Appеllant urges R.A.G.’s testimony requires corroboration because: (1) R.A.G. could not remember the exact date of the rape, (2) she did not rеport the alleged rape for two months, and (3) her testimony conflicts with his and that of his mother.
Corroboration is necessary for admission of a rape victim’s testimony only where the testimony is so unsubstantial and incredible as to be unworthy of belief. Ray v. State, 762 P.2d 274, 277 (Okl.Cr.1988); Lucero v. State, 717 P.2d 605, 606 (Okl.Cr.1986).
Under the circumstances оf this case where time is not of the essence, and R.A.G. narrowed the date within the three week period between her birthday and Christmas, the failure to allege a date certain does not render her testimony unworthy of belief. See accord, State v. Hamrick, 714 S.W.2d 566 (Mo.App.1986). Likewise, the failure to repоrt the crime goes to the weight of the evidence, but does not make otherwise clear testimony inherently improbable and unworthy of belief. Neither does conflicting testimony, even sharply conflicting testimony, trigger the need for corroboration. Pierce v. State, 786 P.2d 1255 (Okl.Cr.1990). The testimony of R.A.G. was properly admitted without corroboration. Her testimony provided sufficient evidence to support the conviction. Spuehler v. State, 709 P.2d 202 (Okl.Cr.1985).
Finding no error which warrants reversal or modification, judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.
LUMPKIN, P.J., JOHNSON, V.P.J., and CHAPEL, J., concur.