The appellant, convicted by a jury of rape but acquitted of perverted practice, claims prejudice because he was required to be tried on both charges in the same trial, he having been arraigned on the perverted practice charge but a few minutes before the trial began. The claim of prejudice is refuted by the fact the jury found him not guilty of perverted practice. If the cases had been tried separately the prosecuting witness could have testified in the rape case to the occurrence of the perverted practice, as she did,
Presley v. State,
The contention of the appellant that it was error to allow the mother of the victim to testify as to the complaints her daughter made on the morning of the rape is without merit. The admission of corroborating evidence that the victim had made complaint promptly was not error.
Murphy v. State,
The State’s Attorney commented, apparently in the closing argument, that statements made by the appellant when arrested and the testimony of alibi witnesses were inconsistent. There
*528
was no reversible error in the refusal to grant a mistrial. The court instructed the jury that it should decide the case on the evidence and not on the remarks of counsel. If impropriety on the part of the prosecutor be assumed, the cautionary warning of the court cured it.
Cohen v. State,
The trial court was right in refusing a motion for a judgment of acquittal. There was legally sufficient evidence from the prosecutrix (which as a matter of law need not be corroborated,
Doyal v. State, 226
Md. 31;
Saldiveri v. State,
The jury had the right to give credit to the testimony of the witnesses for the State and to disbelieve that given in behalf of the accused, including that as to the alibi relied on by the accused.
Wright v. State,
The letter submitted by the appellant after this case had been argued and decided as a supplement to the brief filed for him by his counsel was clearly irregular and it contained nothing meriting comment.
Judgment affirmed.