Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

20 N.M. 179

State v. Harbert

New Mexico Supreme Court

Decided March 11, 1915

New Mexico Supreme Court · decided 1915-03-11

Judge. W. P. Harbert, convicted of the crime of statutory rape, appeals. The evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict. The case must therefore be reversed. Stain v. Albuquerque, 10 N. M. 491; Spencer v. Gross Kelly, 135 Pac. (N. M.) 77; Romero v. Gonzales, 3 N. M. 5. “Substantial,” as used in the decisions of the court, means “of real worth and value.” 2 Stand. Diet. 1793. Children are highly imitative.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The court’s instruction No. 11 that penetration only was sufficient to constitute a -rape correctly stated the law.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Massey

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1915-03-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1964

3 state decisions

10191519201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1OPINION OP THE COURT.

MECHEM, District Judge.

¶2— The defendant was convicted of statutory rape under the provisions of sectio'n 1090, Comp. Laws 1897. The state’s 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.

¶3The court’s instruction No. 11 that penetration only was sufficient to constitute a rape correctly stated the law.

¶4The other errors assigned by appellant have all been considered and adjudged not to be well taken.

¶5The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Hobkrts, C. J., and Hanna, J., concur.
/20/nm/179 · .json · Public domain