*1 you girl inquired Officer date? with if there available sir, night A. Yes did.” the' on that Officer with me The evidence is deemed sufficient to sustain the conviction appears. no error reversible is affirmed.
ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING BELCHER, Judge. testimony contends that Officer Todd’s participated
he procure causing appellant with to other officers girl; therefore, accomplice and testi- he is an mony is testimony not sufficient to corroborate the of the other accomplices.
Officer Todd appellant. was called a witness as law roborated, require testimony does not accomplice of an cor- be given
when
for the accused. The statute forbids con-
upon
viction
testimony
accomplice,
of an
unless corrobo-
rated, but
require
testimony
does not
such
to be corroborated
given
when
for the accused. Josef v.
Texas Cr.
Williams
Howard v. State 27,707. No. November Rehearing; ¡1955 Denied December *2 Borger, appellant. Hood, Hood & for Douglas, Leon Waters, Attorney, Pampa,
Bill and District Attorney, Austin, for State’s the state.
WOODLEY, Judge. rape a term and assessed was convicted for daugh- 15-year-old years penitentiary. in the The was his victim ter. According daughter, appellant had testimony of the will, against
intercourse her and her with without her consent country commanding stop after car on a road. She her to the drinking to kill her further testified that he was and threatened anything. if said she Appellant’s without ob- in evidence confession was offered daugh- having
jection, in which admitted intercourse with the he question. er on the occasion that daughter, was shown
On cross-examination it period occasions, appellant prior had a over a on number of re-direct, year state, two, on her. or had intercourse with by prior acts without her con- showed that were witness against on had struck her sent will and that her father and her previous some of the occasions. state, appellant that by stated
In the confession offered messing” daughter, years ago “started with about two he imagined twelve her about and had had intercourse with he period years. times in of two
Appellant complains (1) he of the court’s because says degree it properly did not on of resistance part prosecutrix; (2) of the it did not submit because two-, prior affirmative defense and as intercourse between (3) specifically jury because it failed to instruct they night only that could consider the act of intercourse on 25, 1954, reaching of December their verdict. questions properly
Neither of the is us considera- before tion. transcript complained appellant court’s of the particulars mentioned, in certain of the and that the ob-
jections However, were overruled the court. shown is not appellant ruling. any reserved to the court’s *3 charge, To invoke a review of a to refusal amend main the response objections thereto, in exception to the record must show an that State, 346, was 986; v. R. reserved. Anderson 95 Texas Cr. State, 254 502, S.W. v. Latson 95 Texas Cr. R. 254 S.W. 982; Jur., Appeal 4 Cases, Texas and Error Criminal Sections 63, 137 and 160.
The record appellant requested further three special charges refused, exception which were but re- no served to such action of the court. timely In the exception, absence of verified the trial
judge, charge requested refusal of the is not reversible State, 408, 143; error. v. Atkins 149 Texas Cr. R. 2d 195 S.W. Boaz 849; v. Spivey Texas Cr. 2d S.W. Texas Cr. R. 2d 4 Texas Jur. 225, Appeal Cases, and Error Criminal Sec. 161. remaining claim of argument error is addressed to of counsel for the state. There is no bill of and no effort appears to-have been made to reserve the error in statement facts, of under the recent 759(a) amendment of Art. V.A.C.C.P.
Nothing presented is therefore for review. We find the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction. is affirmed. REHEARING FOR
ON MOTION Judge. DICE, his refusing consider to in we erred insists that duty was the complaints because of the court’s question in the every jury essential
the court to instruct on requested or not. case whether judge 658, V.A.C.C.P., placing duty upon the trial Art. in case, pro- jury a criminal
to deliver a to in written part in vides as follows: in a felony case tried “In in misdemeanor each case and each argument begins, Judge shall, record,
court of before jury has jury, except guilty, in pleas deliver where to the charge distinctly setting waived, the law forth been a written * * * to the applicable is read to the Before said case. time jury, a reasonable shall have defendant or counsel his objections present thereto to the same and he shall examine ground writing, objection.” distinctly specifying each provided It is further Art. V.A.C.C.P.: jury, counsel “Before court reads his present in- time sides shall have a reasonable to written both structions and they given jury.” ask be 666, V.A.C.C.P., provides: Art. further *4 objections “All to the and to the or modification refusal special charges of shall at the time of the trial.” be made statutes, applying provisions
In these been the of has holding 658, consistent of Art. this court since amendment to 1913, supra, complaint in considered of a will not be appeal objection proper in trial made in the absence covering requested or of a mat- court the submission State, complaint ter of is made. v. 91 Texas Cr. which Gerard State, 374, 924; 103, R. 238 v. 128 Texas R. S.W. Garriott Cr. 848; 441, State, R. 2d v. 149 195 S.W. Jones Texas Cr. 525, 334; 349; State, R. 215 2d 2d v. 152 Texas Cr. S.W. Woods 582, May 272 2d v. 160 Cr. R. S.W. Robbins Texas 96, Texas 274 2d 691. S.W. Cr. original opinion, our cited in the ac- Under the authorities overruling objections court in tion requested charges refusal of the cannot be considered in showing of a absence in the record that an re- ruling. served to the court’s rehearing
The motion for is overruled.
Opinion approved by court.
Ex Parte Robert Louis Fennell 27,763. 2, No. November
Rehearing Denied December Goodivin, Baldwin by Goodivin, Beaumont, & B. Joe relator. Griffin, Ramie Heg- H. Attorney, Criminal Natalie District
dal, Attorney, Beaumont, Assistant Criminal District and Leon Douglas, Attorney, State’s Austin, for the state.
WOODLEY, Judge. sought discharge by Relator penitentiary from the habeas corpus proceeding Lord, judge M. instituted before Owen County, criminal district court of Texas. Jefferson Judge granted and, hearing, Lord the writ after certified contemplated facts to this court as Art. V.A.C.C.P. following: The record reveals the 12, 1953, On June dis- Cause No. said criminal court, pleaded guilty trict relator the offense of child deser- *5 two-year penitentiary. tion and was term in assessed placed probation recites the defendant was “under terms Art. 781b C.C.P.” us, probation nor
The conditions of are not before are