Defendant’s jury trial resulted in a verdict of guilty of assault with intent to commit rape, a violation of § 698.4, The Code. He appeals from judgment sentencing him to confinement in the penitentiary for ten years. We affirm.
To support a reversal defendant raises four grounds which we consider in separate divisions.
I. Defendant аsserts trial court erred in overruling his timely motions to dismiss or direct verdict based on State’s failure to produce sufficient evidence to corroborate the complainant’s testimony as required by § 782.4, The Code.
In a case such as this § 782.4 required,
inter alia,
evidence in addition to testimony of the prosecutrix “tending to connect the defendant with the cоmmission of the offense.” Although that section has now been repealed (Acts 65 G.A., ch. 1271, § 2 [1974]), the repealer did not become effective until July 1, 1974, slightly over two weeks following defendant’s conviction. See § 3.7, The Code, 1973. Thus the corroboration requirement applies here. See State v. Taylor,
The law relating to corroboration under this charge was fully laid out in State v. Taylor, supra.
Whether there is sufficient corroboration under | 782.4 is a question of law for the court but the weight and probative force accorded it is a jury question. Id. at 441.
Corroboration need not be strong, nor go to every element of the case nor pоint certainly or surely to defendant; it need only tend to connect defendant with the crime sufficiently to permit the jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 441.
The evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to the State and every in-tendment reasonably possible is accorded it to sustain the verdict. Id. at 441-442.
While mere evidеnce of opportunity is insufficient, an opportunity to commit an assault with intent to commit rape, surrounded by peculiar circumstances tending to single out an accused as the perpetrator, *871 suffices to create a fact issue as to corroboration. Id. at 442.
Where the evidence discloses an accused 1) created the opportunity under circumstances suggestive of ill intent, or 2) was the only person who could have committed the offense, then other supportive evidence apart from that of the prosecutrix is not required. Id. at 442.
Finally, we have rioted that because facts differ so greatly, previous decisions are of small value as precedents. State v. Escamilla,
With this reference to the applicable law, we turn to the factual battleground.
The charge grew out of an alleged assault upon an eleven-year-old-girl, Kelley. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the jury could have found the following factual narration еstablished.
For a number of years defendant lived intermittently with Gayle and her four illegitimate children. Kelley was the oldest child. Two sons were ages eight and five. The youngest child, a two-year-old baby girl, was defendant’s progeny.
Defendant had sexually molested Kelley from the time she was seven years of age exceрt when he was imprisoned. He had beaten her with a belt to the extent her grandmother complained to the county child abuse authority. The girl had submitted to this treatment without telling anyone because she feared defendant, who threatened to beat her, and because her mother “was on Tom’s side.”
In 1973 and at all rеlevant times in 1974 defendant, a parolee, was wanted by law authorities. A warrant for his arrest was outstanding. On Christmas eve in 1973 he was “recognized” near his mother’s house and thereafter never left Gayle’s home until his arrest.
Defendant had induced Gayle to permit his girl friend, Arlene, and her child, to stay in Gayle’s home from October until Dеcember 1973, when Arlene left after an altercation with Gayle. Following Arlene’s leaving and his enforced restriction to Gayle’s home, defendant became increasingly suspicious and troublesome. He got “restless and ornery” and “mean” with Gayle and her children. He put the five-year-old child’s head between his knеes and squeezed the boy hard enough to make his nose bleed.
When the older children were in school and pre-school, he would not permit Gayle and the baby to leave her home. When the children returned from school Gayle was permitted to run errands but he kept one or more - of the children in the hоme with him, as hostage. He began to carry a switchblade knife. Defendant would not permit the children to play with other children.
On the night of January 29,1974, defendant entered Kelley’s bed and attempted penetration. The next day Kelley, sensing Gayle was no longer “on Tom’s side,” told her mother about the attack. Gayle, fearful for her children’s safety, did not tell the sheriff until a day later. The home was surrounded and defendant arrested.
The next day Kelley was examined by a physician who found she had various vaginal abrasions and contusions. On the basis of his observation the doctor expressed his opinion [without objection] the bruises had beеn inflicted approximately three days earlier and a rape had been attempted. Black light and subsequent laboratory analysis of the bed sheet upon which the attack occurred revealed evidence of acid phosphatase, a component of male ejaculate.
Defendant argues this record discloses only an opportunity to commit the assault and therefore his motions should have been sustained. It is true this court has said opportunity alone will not meet the corroboration requirement, noting “[T]here are many occasions in ordinary business and social relations where men and women are together and an opportunity for the crime is available, but where there is nothing to indicate that the circumstances are other
*872
than proper and innocent * * State v. Escamilla,
The exceptional circumstances surrounding defendant’s total isolation and terrori-zation of this household would permit a finding he was the only person in the home аt the time and place of the attack who was capable of committing the act. See State v. Stevens,
II. Defendant next contends this cause should have been dismissed because his constitutional and statutory rights to speedy trial were violated. See Constitution of the United States, Amendment 6; § 795.2, The Code. Defendant was arrested January 31, 1974. County attorney’s information was filed February 7, 1974. Trial ultimately commenced June 11, 1974.
Our review relating to this issue is not
de novo.
To secure a reversal defendant must show trial court аbused its limited discretion. State v. Albertsen,
We have carefully examined the complete record including the court file, and find trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling good cause existed for the trial delay.
It would not enhance our jurisprudence to detail the barrage of motions, affidavits and papers launсhed pro se by defendant commencing four days following the filing of the county attorney’s information. He refused court-appointed counsel, interviewed and rejected counsel, filed motions to remove the magistrate for bias and prejudice, to remove two assistant county attorneys for bias and prejudice, to remove the district court judge for bias and prejudice, and for various other relief and procedures.
On February 25 defendant was before the district court, again refused offered counsel and refused to proceed without counsel. On March 4 he was scheduled for court appearancе but was hospitalized. On March 21 he appeared with out-of-county court-appointed counsel meeting his approval, waived arraignment and was given ten days to plead.
April 1, defendant’s counsel moved for continuance of the April 2 trial date, based upon lack of time for preparаtion and trial schedule conflict resulting from a previously assigned trial. Defendant volunteered a refusal to join in the motion.
April 2, the request for continuance was granted. Trial court took under advisement defendant’s motion for change of venue, filed pro se on March 19.
April 9, an order was entered granting change of venue tо Boone county, where trial was set for June 5. Defendant continued to file pro se papers including a “grievance for reduction of bond” and an “affidavit of bias and prejudice” relating to still another district court judge.
May 29, the State moved for continuance on grounds that two witnesses would be unavailable on June 5 and that attempted depositions had been thwarted by defendant’s disruptive outbursts. We assume counsel had at least tacitly agreed to take these depositions for use at trial. During subsequent trial defendant in chambers virtually conceded he had caused the deposi *873 tions to abort. State’s continuance motion was granted and trial commenced June 11.
June 6 and June 11 defendant filed pro se motions to dismiss for lack of speedy trial which were overruled. Trial court found, inter alia, the delay resulted from a continuance secured by defense counsel. It further found defendant’s successful motion for change of venue furnished good cause for delay as the trial assignment in Boone county was already fixed when the case was transferred. Defendant’s case was set to commence promptly upon completion of that trial term.
At the threshold we observe defendant by controversies over counsel and hospitalization delayed scheduled arraignment until March 21, 1974. See State v. Lyles,
Here a continuance on defense counsel’s motion carrying the case beyond the 60-day limitation was clearly a postponement “upon his [defendant’s] application.” Section 795.2, The Code; State v. Manning,
Defendant now reminds us he then refused to join in the continuance motion and then refused to waive his speedy trial right.
It is also apparent he neither requested other counsel nor offered to proceed without counsel. We also note one of the designated reasons trial court granted the motion was to consider defendant’s pro se motion for change of venue based on community bias and prejudice. The latter motion was thereafter sustained within a reasonable time in view of the fact defendant was still filing supporting papers on April 1. See State v. Manning, supra at 236 (“Defendant is in no position to complain; he got his wish”); State v. LaMar, supra at 254 (accused cannot take advantage of delay for which he was responsible).
There was no requirement defendant “join in” his counsel’s motion for continuance. As a general rule a client is bound by the acts of his attorney performed within the scope of the latter’s authority. State v. LaMar, supra at 254. In addition, the rule is “well settlеd” the right to proceed
pro se
is waived by the accused’s failure to
unequivocally
request to act as his own attorney. State v. Smith,
Defendant should not expect, nor shall he be permitted, to file the papers supporting his motion for change of venue the day before trial (and a week before expiration of the 60-day trial period) and then obtain a reversal because he did not receivе a ruling, transfer and trial within the original 60-day period. See State v. King,
After the case was reset for June 5 following defense counsel’s motion for continuance and defendant’s successful pro se motion for change of venue, trial court granted the State a brief continuance to secure the presence of witnesses whose depositions defendant aborted.
We find no abuse of trial court’s discretion in determining there was § 795.2 good cause for delay of defendant’s trial until June 11.
Defendant separately claims violation of his constitutional speedy trial right defined in Barker v. Wingo,
III. Defendant asserts trial court should have granted his motions to dismiss grоunded upon failure of the information to charge a crime under Iowa law.
*874 The information accused defendant “* * * of Attempted Rape in violation of Section 698.4 of the 1973 Code of Iowa * * «77
Section 698.4, The Code states, inter alia: “698.4 Assault with intent to commit rape. If any person assault a female with intent to commit a rape * *
Defendant argues that because all crimеs are statutory in Iowa (Wright v. Denato,
Section 773.4, The Code, is important in weighing the merits of defendant’s complaint. Examining the criteria there identified for testing the validity of the information we find the language used in this charge, couplеd as it was with the designated code section, is minimally sufficient although certainly not to be recommended.
Moreover, it is apparent the gist of defendant’s complaint was an insufficient description of the offense to meet the requirements of § 773.4. The issue thus being one of conformance to code requirements, defendant was required to raise the issue by demurrer (§ 777.2, The Code) and waived the alleged defect by delaying until after the jury was sworn. Section 777.3, The Code; State v. Grindle,
IV. Defendant contends trial court’s denial of his request for preliminary hearing filed March 29, 1974 violated his rights under the United States Constitution, Amendments 4 and 14. This request was rеfused on the ground the hearing was unnecessary as the information had been filed.
Following the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Gerstein v. Pugh,
In holding Lass applies here, we do not condone failures to follow the unequivocal direction of § 761.1, The Code, that a magistrate before whom an arrested person is brought “shall immediately proceed with the preliminary examination, or may allow thе defendant to waive the same,” nor does this case require us to determine whether an accused has other available remedies upon a denial of his statutory or constitutional rights in this respect.
V. We have carefully examined and reexamined the total record, including the transcript, in this appеal. Defendant was represented by competent counsel who defended ably despite defendant’s simultaneous and frequently inept self-help. Trial court throughout displayed that patience and insight which characterizes competent trial management of criminal cases. Defendant received a fair trial. We find no reversible error and therefore affirm.
Affirmed.