statute the credibility of her evidence should be left wholly to the jury as in other cases. They will be justified in convicting the defendant on her evidence alone, though it may be uncorroborated, if it convinces them beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.55 But her testimony should be carefully scrutinized, and court and jury should diligently guard themselves from the undue influence of the sympathy in her behalf which the circumstances are apt to excite.56 So on appeal the testimony Neb. 330, 336-338, 27 N. W. 234; People v. Kunz, 76 Hun (N. Y.) 610, 27 N. Y. S. 945; State v. Connelly, 57 Minn. 482, 485, 59 N. W. 479; Bradshaw v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. 165, 94 S. W. 223; Livinghouse v. State, 76 Neb. 491, 107 N. W. 854; Klawitter v. State, 76 Neb. 49, 107 N. W. 121; Fitzgerald v. State, 78 Neb. 1, 110 N. W. 676; People v. Farina, 118 N. Y. S. 817; Donovan v. State, 140 Wis. 570, 122 N. W. 1022. By statute in Iowa Code, § 5488; State v. Norris, 127 Iowa 683, 104 N. W. 282, corroboration is required solely for the purpose of connecting accused with the crime. State v. Bartlett, 127 Iowa 689, 104 N. W. 285; State v. Blackburn (Iowa, 1907), 110 N. W. 275. Scott v. State, 3 Ga. App. 479, 60 S. E. 112; Hill v. State (Tex. Cr.), 77 S. W. 808; Hammond v. State, 39 Neb. 252, 58 N. W. 92; State v. Lattin, 29 Conn. 389; Shirwin v. People, 69 Ill. 55; Givens v. Commonwealth, 29 Gratt. (Va.) 830, 835; State v. Hert, 89 Mo. 590, 591, 1 S. W. 830; State v. Wilcox, III Mo. 569, 20 S. W. 314, 33 Am. St. 551; Fager v. State, 22 Neb. 332, 35 N. W. 195; Barnett v. State, 83 Ala. 40, 3 So. 612; Lynn v. Commonwealth (Ky.), 13 S. W. 74, 11 Ky. L. 772; State v. Dusenberry, 112 Mo. 277, 296, 20 S. W. 461. Cf. State v. Connelly, 57 Minn. 482, 485, 59 N. W. 479; State v. McLaughlin, 44 Iowa 82; 2 Bish. on Cr. Pro., § 963; I Phill. on Ev., 7; Curby v. Territory, 4 Ariz. 371, 42 Fac. 953. Cf. Mathews v. State, 19 Neb. 330, 27 N. W. 234; People v. Doyle (Fla., 1897), 22 So. 272; State v. Fetterly, 33 Wash. 599, 74 Pac. 810; State v. Day, 188 Mo. 359, 87 S. W. 465; Brown v. State, 127 Wis. 193, 106 N. W. 536; Thomas v. Commonwealth, 106 Va. 855, 56 S. E. 705; State v. Conlin, 45 Wash. 478, 88 Pac. 932; State v. Jones, 32 Mont. 442, 80 Pac. 1095; Allen v. State (Miss., 1908), 45 So. 833; People v. Keith, 141 Cal. 686, 75 Pac. 304; Druin v. Commonwealth (Ky., 1910), 124 S. W. 856. Admissions showing a plan to commit a rape or the flight of the accused have been held to be sufficient corroboration. Loar V. State, 76 Neb. 148, 107 N. W. 229; State v. Hetland, 141 Iowa 524, 119 N. W. 961. But the refusal of the accused to be examined by a physician is not sufficient corroboration. Rex v. Gray, 68 J. P. 327. 56 Boddie v. State, 52 Ala. 395, 398; State v. Hatfield, 75 Iowa 592, 596, 39 N. W. 910; Smith v. State, 77 Ga. 705, 711-716. The party ravished may give evidence, but the credibility of her evidence must be left to the jury. If she be of good fame, presently disclosed the offense and made search for the offender, these and like circumstances give greater prob of the prosecutrix will be closely scrutinized and if it appears incredible a judgment of guilty should be reversed.57 58 A conviction will not be sustained if the prosecutrix is unable to identify the prisoner. Her statements, describing the man who assaulted her, cannot be proved at the trial by a witness to whom she made them out of court." If the complainant is too young to comprehend the nature and responsibility of an oath, her testimony is not admissible," nor are her statements made out of court permitted to be proved." But the infancy or imbecility of the prosecutrix, though of such a nature as to preclude her from giving consent or making resistance, will not exclude her evidence if she is shown to have sufficient mental capacity to comprehend and appreciate the nature of an oath. Much latitude is allowable in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix. She may be asked if she consented to the intercourse with the accused, and she may also be interrogated upon her silence in reference thereto. She may be asked if she reported the outrage to her priest, or if she said that the accused was innocent, and that his prosecution was for blackmailing purposes.** 63 ability to her testimony. If she be of evil fame, unsupported in her testimony by others, concealed the injury a considerable time, and might have been heard, yet made no outcry, these and like circumstances create a strong but not a conclusive presumption that her testimony is incredible. 4 Bl. Comm. 213. When the woman is the sole witness for the prosecution, and her evidence is impeached and contradicted, it may be proved that she had made charges of a like nature against her brother and many others which she subsequently admitted were false. People v. Evans, 72 Mich. 367, 381, 40 N. W. 473. 61 Reg. v. Nicholas, 2 C. & K. 246; Rex v. Williams, 7 C. & P. 320. 60a State v. Crouch, 130 Iowa 478, 107 N. W. 173. 61 Smith v. Commonwealth, 85 Va. 924, 927, 9 S. E. 148; Rodgers v. State, 30 Tex. App. 510, 17 S. W. 1077; McMath v. State, 55 Ga. 303. 308; State v. Lattin, 29 Conn. 389. The witness, if young and very ignorant, may be plied with leading questions by the prosecutor. Ellis v. State, 25 Fla. 702, 6 So. 768. See § 204. People v. Baldwin, 117 Cal. 244, 49 Pac. 186. Woodin v. People, 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 464; Brown v. State, 127 Wis. 193, 106 N. W. 536; Schults v. 57 State v. Goodale, 210 Mo. 275, State, 49 Tex. Cr. 351, 91 S. W. 786. $415. The prior relations of the parties.-The state may prove improper acts and solicitations to sexual intercourse by the accused toward the prosecutrix and other assaults by the accused on her," as well as acts of voluntary sexual intercourse between them prior to the rape charged, in order to show his probable motive or intent." On the other hand, to prove consent, it may be shown that the prosecutrix sought the company of the accused, and that their relations were always friendly, though chaste and proper." But evidence that the prosecutrix knew the accused was a man of bad character," or evidence to show acts of sexual intercourse by the accused with other women, is not admissible.T State v. Carpenter, 124 Iowa 5, 98 N. W. 775; State v. Crouch, 130 Iowa 478, 107 N. W. 173; People v. Morris, 3 Cal. App. 1, 84 Pac. 463; State v. Fetterly, 33 Wash. 599, 74 Pac. 810; State v. Trusty, 122 Iowa 82, 97 N. W. 989; State v. Borchert, 68 Kan. 360, 74 Pac. 1108; People v. Manahan, 32 Cal. 68; State v. Robison, 32 Ore. 43, 48 Pac. 357; People v. Abbott, 97 Mich. 484, 486, 56 N. W. 662, 37 Am. St. 360; Hardtke v. State, 67 Wis. 552, 554, 30 N. W. 723; State v. Knapp, 45 N. H. 148, 156; State v. Patrick, 107 Mo. 147, 155, 17 S. W. 666; People v. O'Sullivan, 104 N. Y. 481, 484, 10 N. E. 880, 58 Am. 530; Barnes v. State, 88 Ala. 204, 207, 7 So. 38, 16 Am. St. 48; Taylor v. State, 22 Tex. App. 529, 545, 3 S. W. 753, 58 Am. 656n; State v. Sysinger (S. Dak., 1910), 125 N. W. 879. Evidence of a previous attempt to commit a rape is not incompetent, because it comes from the prosecu- 67 $ 416. Proof of carnal knowledge requisite.-Despite some lack of harmony in the early English cases, it is now settled that an allegation of carnal knowledge is sustained by proof of actual penetration alone; and it is not now, and never seems to have been, required in America, that actual emission should be proved." Penetration may be proved by the direct evidence of the female, though her evidence is neither the best nor the only proper evidence of that fact. Her evidence on this point ought to be convincing and consistent to sustain a conviction.72 It may be inferred from the circumstances, as from the physical condition of the female, the marks of violence on her and her complaints of pain and soreness. This rule is very important, and of frequent application in the case of the rape of children, who, from ignorance and inexperience, are incapable of testifying intelligently to this essential fact. Proof of penetration beyond a reasonable doubt is always absolutely essential, both at common law and under the statutes.' Evidence that the woman voluntarily remained with the defendant in a room all night is not sufficient to sustain a conviction. But proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the least penetration is sufficient." drunk when he outraged her, and that she was frightened and in great fear. Maillet v. People, 42 Mich. 262, 263, 3 N. W. 854. Cf. Bean v. People, 124 Ill. 576, 583, 16 N. E. 656. Statements by the defendant, made months before the crime, tending to show his passion towards the woman, are receivable. Barnes v. State, 88 Ala. 204, 7 So. 38, 16 Am. St. 48. 71 Comstock v. State, 14 Neb. 205, 206, 15 N. W. 355; Waller v. State, 40 Ala. 325, 332; People v. Crowley, 102 N. Y. 234, 237, 6 N. E. 384; State v. Hargrave, 65 N. Car. 466, 467; Osgood v. State, 64 Wis. 472, 25 N. W. 529; State v. Shields, 45 Conn. 256; Taylor v. State, III Ind. 279, 12 N. E. 400; 1 Hale P. C. 628; 2 Bish. Cr. Law, § 1127; Bradburn v. State, 162 Ind. 689, 71 N. E. 133. 72 State v. Forshee, 199 Mo. 142, 97 S. W. 933. 75 76 73 74 Brauer v. State, 25 Wis. 413, 415; Taylor v. State, III Ind. 279, 280, 12 N. E. 400; Wesley v. State, 65 Ga. 731, 734; People v. Crowley, 102 N. Y. 234, 237, 6 N. E. 384; Comstock v. State, 14 Neb. 205, 209, 15 N. W. 355; State v. Depoister, 21 Nev. 107, 25 Pac. 1000; Givens v. Commonwealth, 29 Gratt. (Va.) 830, 835: People v. Bernor, 115 Mich. 692, 74 N. W. 184; State v. Biggs (Wash., 1910), 107 Pac. 374. $ 417. The force or fraud employed-Threats and mortal fearFailure to make outcry.-To convict, the jury must be satisfied that the sexual intercourse was either obtained by force, or if it was actually obtained by trick or fraud, that the accused intended to employ force if the fraud should fail.78 An actual force used by the accused sufficient to create an apprehension of death in the mind of the victim need not be proved. If a less degree of force is used but coupled with threats to kill or to inflict bodily harm, in fear of which she involuntarily submits, the intimidation practiced will be regarded as constructive force.80 The kind and 237, 6 N. E. 384; People v. Courier, 79 Mich. 366, 367, 44 N. W. 571; Brauer v. State, 25 Wis. 413, 415; State v. Shields, 45 Conn. 256; Bailey v. Commonwealth, 82 Va. 107, 113, 3 Am. St. 87; Bean v. People, 124 Ill. 576, 583, 16 N. E. 656; People v. Rivers, 147 Mich. 643, 111 N. W. 201, 14 Det. Leg. N. 6. If the evidence satisfies the jury that any part of the membrum virile of the accused was within the labia of the pudendum, a verdict of guilty should be rendered. Reg. v. Lines, 1 C. & K. 393, 47 E. C. L. 393. Commonwealth v. Fields, 4 Leigh (Va.) 648; State v. Shepard, 7 Conn. 54; Eberhart v. State, 134 Ind. 651, 655, 34 N. E. 637; Garrison v. People, 6 Neb. 274; McNair v. State, 53 Ala. 453; Lewis v. State, 30 Ala. 54, 56, 68 Am. Dec. 113; Osgood v. State, 64 Wis. 472, 474, 25 N. W. 529; Reg. v. Stanton, 1 C. & K. 415; Reg. v. Camplin, 1 C. & K. 746; State v. Urie, 101 Iowa 411, 70 N. W. 603; State v. Neil, 13 Idaho 539, 90 Pac. 860, 91 Pac. 318. It is usually said that the utmost reluctance and re 79 192, 195; Whittaker v. State, 50 Wis. 518, 523, 7 N. W. 431, 36 Am. 856n; State v. Burgdorf, 53 Mo. 65, 67; Don Moran v. People, 25 Mich. 356, 12 Am. 283n; Anderson v. State, 104 Ind. 467, 474, 4 N. E. 63, 5 N. E. 711; People v. Murphy, 145 Mich. 524, 108 N. W. 1009; Gaskin v. State, 105 Ga. 631, 31 S. E. 740; 3 Greenl. on Ev. 79 'Waller v. State, 40 Ala. 325, 331. 80 Pleasant v. State, 13 Ark. 360; State v. Urie, 101 Iowa 411, 70 N. W. 603; Huston v. People, 121 Ill. 497, 499, 13 N. E. 538; State v. Ward, 73 Iowa 532, 35 N. W. 617; State v. Dusenberry, 112 Mo. 277, 282, 296, 20 S. W. 461; Turner v. People, 33 Mich. 363; Huber v. State, 126 Ind. sistance by the woman should appear. 185, 186, 25 N. E. 904. To establish the crime of rape, the utmost reluctance on the part of the woman must be shown, and also that she availed herself of every reasonable |