142 N.E. 670 | NY | 1923
The defendant was convicted of the crime of rape. His conviction was reversed in the Appellate Division and he was granted a new trial on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence supporting the testimony of the complainant. (Penal Law, § 2013.) We agree that this result was right but not, however, for the reason given in the court below.
The general rule is that the corroborating testimony should tend to show the material facts necessary to establish the commission of the crime and the identity of the person committing it. (People v. Plath,
We think, however, incompetent testimony damaging to the defendant was admitted over his objection and exception. Immediately after the assault it was shown that the child made complaint to a neighbor. Such testimony was competent. (People
v. O'Sullivan,
The order appealed from must be affirmed.
HISCOCK, Ch. J., CARDOZO and POUND, JJ., concur; HOGAN, McLAUGHLIN and CRANE, JJ., concur in result and on additional ground that there was not corroborating evidence.
Order affirmed. *305