Johnson v. State

Per Curiam. John Arthur Johnson, the appellant, was convicted of common law rape in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, Judge James K. Cullen presiding without a jury. The evidence adduced at the trial showed that in the afternoon of November 7, 1966, Johnson, who had just been released from the Maryland Penitentiary, went to the home of his friend Eddie Smith. According to the testimony of Eddie’s mother, Johnson, upon learning that Eddie was not at home, forced his way into the Smith apartment.

Johnson then pulled down the shade in the living room and grabbed Mrs. Smith. He hit her several times with a brick; and he raped her while holding a soda pop bottle over her head. A few minutes later Eddie Smith ²²¹ returned home. After Mrs. Smith let her son in, Johnson, according to the prosecutrix's testimony, threatened that if Eddie should call the police he would kill him.

Mrs. Smith, nonetheless, called the police while her son stayed with Johnson. Johnson contends that there was insufficient evidence of penetration to sustain the conviction as required by Craig v. State, 214 Md. 546 , 136 A. 2d 243 . He specifically says that Mrs. Smith’s testimony that “he intercoursed with me” was not enough to show penetration. In McEntire v. State, 2 Md. App. 449 , 235 A. 2d 311 , it was held that proof of penetration was shown by use of the term “sex relations.” The Court of Appeals in Robert v. State, 220 Md. 159 , 151 A. 2d 737 held that sufficient proof was established by the term “sexual intercourse.” The Court of Appeals, further, stated that the jury was entitled to examine other pertinent facts in weighing the testimony of the prosecutrix to see if she understood the meaning and ramification of words—sexual intercourse.

Mrs. Smith, at the time of the trial was forty-four years old, a married woman and mother of three. She was nervous while on the stand and somewhat reluctant to go into the details of the penetration. She did testify that Johnson threatened to kill her after he had “finished busting his nut.” In answer to the meaning of this phrase, she testified that it meant “the intercourse, finish intercourse.” On cross-examination Mrs. Smith stated that she reported to her son that Johnson had raped her, not