Is a victim's testimony alone sufficient evidence to support a felony conviction?

Question

If, for example, a woman accuses a man of harassing her, can the man be convicted of a felony and sent to prison solely on the basis of the victim's testimony as the sole witness in the case without any other evidence?

Answer 1

united-states

Yes, someone can be convicted of a felony based solely upon that testimony of a single witness, who may be the victim of the crime. See, e.g., Williams v. Florida (Fla. App. 2018).

Similarly, a criminal defense lawyer in Texas states clearly that "the testimony of one witness is enough evidence to convict a person of a crime in Texas. Provided that the testimony is convincing, a person can be found guilty of a crime and go to prison based on the testimony of a single witness."

California Evidence Code § 411 says so clearly, expressly disavowing any legal requirement that witness testimony be corroborated by other evidence:

Except where additional evidence is required by statute, the direct evidence of one witness who is entitled to full credit is sufficient for proof of any fact.

No corroborating evidence is legally required. Indeed, convictions of crimes solely on the testimony of a single witness aren't even terribly uncommon.

Sworn witness testimony subject to cross-examination is evidence just like any other evidence. See, e.g., Colorado Criminal Jury Instructions (2022) D01 (Direct v. Circumstantial Evidence), E03 (Reasonable Doubt), E04 (Number of Witnesses), and E05 (Credibility of Witnesses). See also, e.g., United States v. Kenyon, 481 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir. 2007) (where victim testified that the defendant placed his penis in the victim’s mouth at least once, this was sufficient to convict the defendant on one count of child sexual abuse).

If the finder of fact (a jury in most cases, but a judge in a bench trial) concludes that this testimony is sufficient to prove the prosecution's case beyond a reasonable doubt, then the conviction is valid. Convictions will only be overturned on appeal if there is not evidence in the trial court record to support them, viewing all evidence received in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict.

In reviewing a record for sufficiency, the relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Conway, 108 Ohio St. 3d 214, 2006-Ohio-791, ¶36.

In deciding whether the evidence presented at a trial was sufficient to support a criminal conviction, a court must “determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

State v. Troisi, 124 Ohio St. 3d 404, 2010-Ohio-275, ¶7.

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court must review the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether the evidence before the trial court was sufficient to sustain a conviction. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 279 (1991).

State v. Howse, 2024-Ohio-503.

The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and a reviewing court will not infringe upon the province of the jury by reweighing the evidence. In re Washington, 81 Ohio St. 3d 337, 339 (1998).

Answer 2

The law of scotland has historically taken the position that "no one shall in any case be convicted on the testimony of a single witness. No matter how trivial the offence, and how high so ever the credit and character of the witness, still our law is averse to rely on his single word." (Hume, Commentaries on the Law of Scotland regarding Crimes, vol. 2, p383). The rule is said to derive from such Biblical foundations as Deuteronomy 19:15,

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. (KJV)

However, this requirement for corroboration is subtle and does not mean that two or more witnesses are always required to prove every single element of an offence. The modern position is set out in a recent en banc judgment, Reference by HM Advocate against CLB [2023] HCJAC 40. At paragraph 235:

The basic rule is that no-one can be convicted on the testimony of one witness alone. Where there is direct (eye witness) evidence of the crime, that evidence can be corroborated by another eye witness or by facts and circumstances spoken to by at least one other witness. None of these individual facts and circumstances needs to be spoken to by more than one witness, and the offence to which the witness speaks need not be divided into several constituent parts. That applies equally in a wholly circumstantial case. Where there is one eye witness, the facts and circumstances spoken to by one or more other witnesses are corroborative if they confirm or support the eye witness evidence of the crime. They do not themselves, looked at in isolation, require to point towards the commission of the crime as if they were the equivalent of a second eye witness. If they did that, they would, without the existence of the direct testimony, be sufficient as a wholly circumstantial case, provided that there was more than one witness in the case. What requires to be proved by corroborated evidence is the case against the accused. That is, first, that the crime, which is libelled, was committed and secondly, that it was the accused who committed it. There is no requirement to prove the separate elements in a crime by corroborated evidence.

In particular, a victim of a rape which takes place in private will not have a second eyewitness to the event. But not every single point of her testimony needs to be separately corroborated. It can be enough to present other evidence which backs up her account, such as that somebody else saw her in distress at the time, or that she told someone what happened soon afterwards (a "de recenti statement"). Physical evidence, if available, can also be corroborative. Indeed, this sort of overlapping evidence can have more overall probative value than having two people testify to the exact same thing.

There are also several statutory and common-law exceptions to the rule, in particular circumstances or for certain offences.

In any given trial, it's up to the judge to direct the jury (or himself if there is no jury) as to what sort of corroboration is required at law. Whoever is the finder of fact must then assess whether the evidence presented, taken together, meets the required standard of proof.

Answer 3

canada

The question always remains whether the finder of fact is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.

See R. v. (W.)(D.), [1991] 1 SCR 742:

First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit.

Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit.

Third, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence which you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused.

Convictions can successfully be obtained based on the sole testimony of a credible and reliable complainant.

There are other related question on this site:

• How is a judge to evaluate a witness's credibility?
• How do you prove a fact at issue in litigation?

Answer 4

germany

A Victim is someone that was present and the target of some act, so they are also a witness.

Witnesses present evidence to the judge[s], their statement is evidence and follows the rules under StPO (for crimes) and ZPO (for civil cases).

The credibility of witness statements is weighed only by the judge[s], and most questions come from the judge's bench - the witness has to be truthful. Only after the judge[s] had their turn, the other parties may ask questions. Questions regarding credibility need to suffice §68a StPO or §395 ZPO.

If a single witness is deemed credible and the breach of law is proven by this statement beyond a reasonable doubt, then the court will rule accordingly.

In a case of one witness only, typically you see a "He said-she said" situation of the witness' statement versus the accused's statement. The court will weigh both their credibilities against one another and create a legal fiction of what transpired.