L. v. Shockley v. State Tennessee

HAL HARDIN, Special Judge. OPINION L. V. Shockley appeals his conviction for rape, for which he received a ten year penitentiary
sentence. He now contends: (1) that the evidence fails to support the jury's verdict, (2) that the trial court improperly
applied T.C.A. § 40-2445 to restrict his right to cross-examine and to produce witnesses in his own behalf, (3)
that he was unfairly prejudiced by the prosecution's closing argument and the court's refusal to entertain his objections
to it, and (4) that the prosecution improperly introduced evidence of other crimes against him. For the reasons set out below,
we have determined that the case must be retried. The appellant's first two assignments challenge the jury's verdict as being contrary to the law and the evidence. The charges
in this case were brought by the thirteen year old daughter of Shockley's female co-habitant some four months after the alleged
crime. She testified that she did not tell anyone of the occurrence at the time, because the appellant had threatened to hurt
her mother. According to her testimony, the rape occurred after she accompanied the appellant to a local body shop to pick
up his car, two or three weeks before Christmas in 1974. Discovering the car was not ready, the appellant purportedly drove
to Keith Springs Mountain, pulled off the main road, went around to the prosecutrix's side of the car, forced her down on
the seat, removed almost all of her clothes, told her he would not take her home unless she submitted, threatened her with
his raised fist, and had sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix stated that she did not consent, that she struggled,
and that the intercourse occurred against her will.