Caulfield

Defendant was convicted of the crime of rape, and sentenced to the penitentiary for ten years. He appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The chief point relied upon by appellant, and the only one that merits serious consideration, is the claim that the evidence is insufficient to justify or sustain the verdict. In this behalf our attention is directed to a line of cases in this state which hold that in cases of this character the testimony of the complainant alone, if inherently improbable and uncorroborated, will not support a conviction. (People v. Benson, 6 Cal. 221 , [ 65 Am. Dec. 506 ] ; People v. Hamilton, 46 Cal. 540 ; People v. Brown, 47 Cal. 447 ; People v. Ardaga, 51 Cal. 371 .) In those cases the evidence was so improbable as to warrant the conclusion that the verdicts were the result of passion or prejudice. In our judgment, however, the facts of this case do not bring it within the rule laid down in those cases. Here the testimony of the prosecutrix is neither improbable nor uncorroborated. Much of the evidence is of such a character that we cannot with propriety repeat it in this opinion, but that part of it tending to…