Akey

Defendant was charged with and convicted of the crime of rape, committed on one Lutie Valentine. Judgment of imprisonment followed and this appeal is from the judgment.

The judgment was reversed by the district court of appeal for the second appellate district and a further hearing granted on application of the respondent by this court.

The reversal by the district court of appeal was based on the conclusion that the trial court erred in giving the following instruction: “The court further instructs the jury that it is not essential to a conviction in this case that the testimony of the prosecutrix, Lutie Valentine, should be corroborated by other evidence. It is sufficient if you believe beyond a reasonable doubt from all the evidence in the case that the crime charged has in fact been committed as alleged.” It was held by the district court that by this instruction the trial court invaded the province of the jury in charging with respect to matters of fact, contrary to section 19 of article VI of the constitution of this state.

In that respect the specific point relied upon by the appellant, and sustained by the district court was, that the trial court singled out and gave…