Whittaker v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 109 — INDICTMENT APPEAL PROM OHIO CIRCUIT COURT. The daughter of defendant was an accomplice, and a conviction can not he had upon her testimony alone. (Criminal Code, secs. 241 and 242; Gen. Stats., chap. 29, art. 4, sec. 13; Miller v. Commonwealth, 78 Ky„ 15.)
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HAZBLKIGG
delivered the opinion or the court.
The appellant was indicted, tried and convicted for the crime of incest.
He denied his guilt, aud his conviction was secured on the testimony alone of his minor daughter, the alleged victim of his lust. There was no testimony in corroboration of the daughter’s, and for this reason it is insisted that the jury should have been told to acquit.
They were in effect told that they might infer the consent of the daughter to the carnal knowledge of the father, from its long continuance without complaint from her, aud that if there was such consent,…
2Cited by19 opinions
- Lusby v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1958
- State v. AkerWashington Supreme Court · 1909
- Bond v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1897
- McCaskill v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1908
- Duncan v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1924
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.