{ "id": 1582984, "name": "STATE v. SCARBOROUGH", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Scarborough", "decision_date": "1951-04-09", "docket_number": "No. 5352", "first_page": "201", "last_page": "205", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "55 N.M. 201" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "230 P.2d 235" } ], "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": "51 N.M. 65", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1578293 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/51/0065-01" ] }, { "cite": "225 S.W.2d 262", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "156 S.W.2d 385", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "178 Tenn. 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Tenn.", "case_ids": [ 8531410 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/tenn/178/0071-01" ] }, { "cite": "128 P.2d 314", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "14 Wash.2d 387", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wash. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2568248 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wash-2d/14/0387-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 P.2d 614", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "82 Cal.App.2d 117", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2354303 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-app-2d/82/0117-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 P.2d 237", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "25 Cal.App.2d 301", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 4513968 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-app-2d/25/0301-01" ] }, { "cite": "225 S.W.2d 260", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "189 Tenn. 424", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Tenn.", "case_ids": [ 8530897 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/tenn/189/0424-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 S.W. 95", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "97" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "118 Mo. 7", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 972501 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mo/118/0007-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 553, "char_count": 8743, "ocr_confidence": 0.692, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.536937586810371e-08, "percentile": 0.5247707491826744 }, "sha256": "db6ff99229fd9779dfef0575275f7f75d7eebe047ecafef55d4c5a17657f2022", "simhash": "1:3acf937afb1667d9", "word_count": 1562 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:25:45.026167+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "LUJAN, C. J., and McGHEE and COMPTON, JJ., concur.", "COORS, J., being absent, did not participate." ], "parties": [ "STATE v. SCARBOROUGH." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "SADLER, Justice.\nThe defendant was convicted of rape in the district court of Curry County and sentenced to a term in the penitentiary. He prosecutes this appeal in an effort to secure a new trial. Two grounds of reversal are set up, the first claiming error in the trial court\u2019s refusal of a specially requested instruction touching the effect of extreme intoxication as producing temporary impotency, thereby rendering it unlikely that he could or would have committed the offense charged. The second, indeed, only other error claimed, is the trial court\u2019s action in overruling an objection to a statement in evidence by the prosecuting witness of what she told the officer in charge at police headquarters in telephoning for help following the assault. The errors claimed will be treated in the order just stated.\nThere being no challenge to sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict of guilty, it may be taken as established that the rape charged was in fact committed by defendant, notwithstanding his denial. It occurred some time between 10:30 o\u2019clock at night and 2:00 o\u2019clock the following morning at the apartment of the prosecuting witness where the' police, in response to a telephone call from her, found defendant lying on her bed, seemingly in a drunken sleep or stupor. The evidence was that, prior to being thus found, he had severely beaten the prosecuting witness, a young woman 22 years of age, had disrobed her and had committed two, criminal assaults upon her.\nBefore coming to the apartment earlier in the evening, the prosecuting witness in the company of a young man and another young woman with her male companion had been to a place described as a \u201cbootleg joint\u201d where beer was served and during the evening had come across the defendant, who had been drinking. He attached himself to their party and accompanied the prosecuting witness and her companion to her apartment. She knew him only slightly, having served him on one or two occasions in the restaurant where she was employed as a waitress. Soon after arriving at the apartment the young man mentioned was ordered away by the defendant and he departed. The assault charged took place after his departure.\nThe defendant claimed to have only slight recollection of what transpired in the apartment following his arrival there. He did recall a statement to the prosecuting witness expressing regret that he had not taken her to a bowling alley that evening. He further testified he had been drinking heavily and that, after listening to the playing of some phonographic records for a short time, he became drowsy and just \u201cpassed out.\u201d He said he could remember nothing else that happened until the officers arrived and awakened him, as already related. The state disputes his claim that he had taken enough liquor, even according to his own admissions, to put him in a state of coma and asserts that, even if he had, it would furnish no defense to the charge of which he stands convicted.\nWe agree with the -state\u2019s contention that voluntary intoxication constitutes no defense to a charge of rape. 44 A.J. 926; 52 C.J. 1038; State v. Murphy, 118 Mo. 7, 25 S.W. 95, 97; Steele v. State, 189 Tenn. 424, 225 S.W.2d 260. Cf. People v. Avanzi, 25 Cal.App.2d 301, 77 P.2d 237; People v. Denningham, 82 Cal.App.2d 117, 185 P.2d 614; State v. Huey, 14 Wash.2d 387, 128 P.2d 314.\nIn State v. Murphy, supra, the Supreme Court of Missouri disposed of a contention like that here made in the following language, to-wit: \u201cThere was no error in the fifth instruction, which told the jury that, although they might believe defendant was intoxicated at the time of the rape, yet, if the intoxication was voluntary on his part, it constituted no excuse in the law for the crime charged, if the jury found from the evidence that it was committed as charged. This has always been the law of this state, and is yet.\u201d\nThe opinion in Steele v. State, supra, where two defendants were under a sentence of death for rape committed by each upon an elderly woman, applies the same doctrine as that followed in the Missouri decision quoted from, next above. The court said: \u201cThe intoxication of the defendants will not mitigate the crime in a case of this nature. Walden v. State, 178 Tenn. 71, 156 S.W.2d 385. That case holds directly that intoxication is of no value except in cases where a specific intent to commit the crime is necessary, and that in case of criminal assault, no intent is requisite other than that evidenced by the doing of the acts constituting the offense.\u201d [189 Tenn. 424, 225 S.W.2d 262.]\nThe trial court did not err in declining to give the defendant\u2019s specially requested instruction touching the effect of his voluntary intoxication. It constituted no defense to a charge of rape.\nIt is next claimed the trial court erred in permitting the prosecuting witness to state in evidence what she said to the officer at police headquarters upon telephoning there for help. It is to be remembered that immediately preceding this call the witness mentioned had regained consciousness from blows on the head and face by defendant to find herself completely disrobed, lying on the bed beside the defendant who committed two acts of sexual intercourse with her, by force, and then \u201cpassed out,\u201d to use his own description of his condition. It was on the heels of such a terrifying experience that, for the second time, she regained consciousness only to find the defendant still lying on the bed beside her, himself now in a state of seeming unconsciousness. The following interrogation of the witness took place, to-wit:\n\u201cQ. Where were you lying when you regained consciousness the last time you mentioned? A. I was laying on the, sort of on the front of the bed.\n\u201cQ. Was that near the wall or\u2014 A. No sir.\n\u201cQ. \u2014more out into the room? A. No sir, more out into the room.\n\u201cQ. What if anything did you do? A. Well, sir, I didn\u2019t know what to think when I came to and I thought about calling the police, and I thought well, if he came to and I was calling them that he would beat me more and so I slipped off the bed, and I didn\u2019t have strength enough to walk, so I crawled to the bathroom and lcinda held myself up against the furniture. There was a pair of jeans and sweater that I had in the bathroom that I had pulled off that afternoon before I taken my bath, and I slipped them on the best I could, and then I went back and when I stuck my head out of the bathroom door, he was sort of snoring, and 'so I slipped back in there and dialed the operator and told her to get me the police.\n\"Q. Where was that phone Nell with reference now to where the Defendant was lying? A. It wasn\u2019t very far from his head, sir.\n\u201cQ. Did you dial the operator there beside the bed? A. No sir, I picked the phone up and pulled it over on the cedar chest.\n\u201cQ. And what did you tell the operator?\n\u201cMr. Smith: Just a minute, we object to that as being inadmissible, she has testified that she made the report.\n\u201cThe Court: Overruled.\n\u201cMr. Smith: Exception.\n\u201cA. Will you repeat that again, sir ?\n\u201cQ. What did you tell the operator, or did you get the operator ? A. I was scared to death, sir, and I don\u2019t remember exactly what I told the operator, but\u2014\n\u201cQ. Did the operator connect you with any number? A. Yes sir, she connected me with the police.\n\u201cQ. And did you report this incident to the police or did you request that someone come out, or what did you tell them ? A. I believe I asked them to come out and help me, that there was a man beating me to death or something like that.\n\u201cQ. Now, did the police get there? A. Yes sir.\n\u201cQ. Do you know how long it was before they got there ? A. It was just a few minutes, sir.\u201d\nIt is this portion of the answer of the witness to which defendant\u2019s counsel so strenuously objects: \u201cA. I believe I asked them to come out and help me, that there was a man beating me to death or something like that.\u201d\nIt must be admitted that the statement of the witness to the police officer, made over the telephone, seems vague and indefinite, if not bordering on incoherency. Certainly, it suggests the strain under which she labored following the terrible experience she had just undergone. We think it comes within the test of admissibility laid down in State v. Godwin, 51 N.M. 65, 178 P.2d 584, and our earlier decisions discussed in the opinion in that case.\nFinding no error, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nLUJAN, C. J., and McGHEE and COMPTON, JJ., concur.\nCOORS, J., being absent, did not participate.", "type": "majority", "author": "SADLER, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Otto Smith, Clovis, for appellant.", "joe L. Martinez, Atty. Gen., Hilario Rubio, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "230 P.2d 235\nSTATE v. SCARBOROUGH.\nNo. 5352.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nApril 9, 1951.\nOtto Smith, Clovis, for appellant.\njoe L. Martinez, Atty. Gen., Hilario Rubio, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0201-01", "first_page_order": 225, "last_page_order": 229 }