Leek v. State

Per Curiam. The appellant, convicted by a jury of rape but acquitted of perverted practice, claims prejudice because he was required to be tried on both charges in the same trial, he having been arraigned on the perverted practice charge but a few minutes before the trial began. The claim of prejudice is refuted by the fact the jury found him not guilty of perverted practice. If the cases had been tried separately the prosecuting witness could have testified in the rape case to the occurrence of the perverted practice, as she did, Presley v. State, 224 Md. 550 , cert. den. 368 U. S. 957 , and, thus, no prejudice arose in connection with the conviction of rape.

The contention of the appellant that it was error to allow the mother of the victim to testify as to the complaints her daughter made on the morning of the rape is without merit. The admission of corroborating evidence that the victim had made complaint promptly was not error. Murphy v. State, 184 Md. 70 . See also Shoemaker v. State, 228 Md. 462 .

The objections of appellant to the admission of testimony by a doctor as to the emotional state of the victim and testimony by a policeman that the description of appellant’s automobile had been given him by another policeman were insubstantial. The State’s Attorney commented, apparently in the closing argument, that