{
  "id": 4715032,
  "name": "STATE v. HARBERT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Harbert",
  "decision_date": "1915-03-11",
  "docket_number": "No. 1698",
  "first_page": "179",
  "last_page": "181",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "20 N.M. 179"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M.",
    "id": 8835,
    "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "53 N. C. 170",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1961091
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/53/0170-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 Ohio, 222",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ohio",
      "case_ids": [
        486528
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "226"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ohio/14/0222-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "22 Ohio St. 102",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ohio St.",
      "case_ids": [
        887125
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "110"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ohio-st/22/0102-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 N. M. 5",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 N. M. 491",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272537
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/10/0491-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 296,
    "char_count": 3288,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.467,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.50588245470816e-08,
      "percentile": 0.518587570163357
    },
    "sha256": "83bc36ddfd8dce89fc17fbbf80e131f39624a3bc6fbf98c45a3502cf1e3a8653",
    "simhash": "1:67779828dbe3aefb",
    "word_count": 576
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:28:16.553126+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Hobkrts, C. J., and Hanna, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. HARBERT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION OP THE COURT.\nMECHEM, District Judge.\n\u2014 The defendant was convicted of statutory rape under the provisions of sectio'n 1090, Comp. Laws 1897. The state\u2019s case depended upon the credibility given by the jury to the testimony of the complaining witness, who was 13 years of age, and two other young girls, aged 11 and 12. While it may be true, as urged upon us, that young females are more often guilty of the crime of false accusation than other individuals of the species, yet this objection is one directed solely to their credibility as witnesses, and therefore necessarily within the province of the jury and the trial judge. After carefully scrutinizing the entire record, we can say that the statements of these witnesses do not bear the badge of fiction, and that there is nothing in the case as to the condition or situation of the persons involved, nor in the circumstances and setting of the transaction, which raises any suspicion that the defendant was victimized.\nThe court\u2019s instruction No. 11 that penetration only was sufficient to constitute a rape correctly stated the law.\nThe other errors assigned by appellant have all been considered and adjudged not to be well taken.\nThe judgment of the lower court is affirmed.\nHobkrts, C. J., and Hanna, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MECHEM, District Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. W. Gatewood and R. L. Graves of Roswell, for appellant.",
      "Ira L. Grimsi-iaw, Assistant Attorney General, for the State."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "[No. 1698,\nMarch 11, 1915.]\nSTATE v. HARBERT.\nSYLLABUS BY THE COURT.\nProof of penetration alone is sufficient to establish the crime of rape.\nP. 181\nAppeal from District Court, Chaves County; McClure. Judge.\nW. P. Harbert, convicted of the crime of statutory rape, appeals.\nAffirmed.\nW. W. Gatewood and R. L. Graves of Roswell, for appellant.\nThe evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict. The case must therefore be reversed.\nStain v. Albuquerque, 10 N. M. 491; Spencer v. Gross Kelly, 135 Pac. (N. M.) 77; Romero v. Gonzales, 3 N. M. 5.\n\u201cSubstantial,\u201d as used in the decisions of the court, means \u201cof real worth and value.\u201d 2 Stand. Diet. 1793.\nChildren are highly imitative. The testimony of the children in the case at .-bar is made up of wild assertion!?.\n\u25a0 Prior to 1781 the common law provided that proof of penetration was sufficient, and emission need not be proved.\n1 East. P. C. 436.\nBut later in the English common law it was held that emission was indispensable on the ground that carnal knowledge could not exist without it.\nHill\u2019s case, 1 East. P. C. 439; Rex v. Burrows, Russ & Y. 519.\nSince that time statutes in England have made penetration alone sufficient.\n9 Geo. IV, ch. 31, sec. 18; 24 and 25, Viet., ch. 100, sec. 63.\nPenetration alone is not sufficient.\nBlackburn v. State, 22 Ohio St. 102, 110; Williams v. State, 14 Ohio, 222, 226; State v. Hargrave, 65 N. O. 466; State v. Gray, 53 N. C. 170.\nIra L. Grimsi-iaw, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nBy a long line of decisions this court has held that the verdict of a jury will not be disturbed where there is any substantial evidence to support it. The question is whether or not the JURY were justified in finding appellant guilty on the evidence, not whether the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he is so guilty.\nThere was no proper exception taken to instruction 11, and therefore the contention of appellant thereon is not before the court, as is held by a long line of cases in this state."
  },
  "file_name": "0179-01",
  "first_page_order": 195,
  "last_page_order": 197
}