Reynolds

Defendant was convicted, as charged, of the crime of rape, alleged to have been committed about August 13, 1919, upon a girl of the age of thirteen years.

He appeals from the judgment and an order denying his motion for a new trial.

While defendant raises no question as to the sufficiency of the evidence produced in support of the verdict, he insists that the judgment should be reversed on account of alleged errors committed by the court in the course of the trial.

[1] Error is predicated upon the refusal of the court to instruct the jury, at the request of defendant, as follows: “You are instructed that if you believe from the evidence that at the time of the alleged rape other people were at the same time in the same house who might easily have heard her had she made an outcry and that she in fact made no outcry at the time the defendant was attempting to have connection with her, that the failure on her part to make outcry might be considered with all the other evidence in determining the credibility of such witness and whether rape was in fact committed or not.”

As appears from the testimony, the alleged rape was committed in July, 1919, the prosecutrix being unable to fix…