State v. Porter

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree. On appeal, Appellant argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict him because the victim’s testimony was contradictory and lacked corroboration. Appellant’s argument was based on the “corroboration rule” and the “destructive contradictions” doctrine. The Supreme Court abolished the corroboration rule and the destructive contradictions doctrine because both require appellate courts to engage in credibility determinations that are properly left to judges and juries sitting as triers of fact. The Court then affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that Appellant committed statutory sodomy. View "State v. Porter" on Justia Law