648 S.W.2d 727 | Tex. App. | 1983
OPINION
After waiving his right to a jury, appellant was convicted of the offense of rape, with punishment assessed at 10 years confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections. In a single ground of error, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. Appellant admits that he had sexual intercourse with the complaining witness, but contends that the evidence is insufficient to show a lack of her consent.
To review such ground of error, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and affirm the judgment if there is evidence, which, if believed, shows the guilt of the accused. Banks v. State, 510 S.W.2d 592, 595 (Tex.Cr. App.1974). In this case, the trial court was the factfinder and, as such, was the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Johnson v. State, 571 S.W.2d 170, 173 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Combs v. State, 643 S.W.2d 709 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Mooney v. State, 636 S.W.2d 780 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1982, no app.).
Among the circumstances under which sexual intercourse is said by the Penal Code to be without the female’s consent are when the actor compels the victim to submit or participate by (1) “force that overcomes such earnest resistance as might reasonably be expected under the circumstances”; and (2)“any threat that would prevent resistance by a woman of ordinary resolution.” Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 21.02(b) (Vernon 1974). The indictment against appellant alleges both these means.
When both force and threats are alleged, it is not necessary for either the force or the threats to measure up to the statutory definition. The factfinder may consider their combined effect in determining whether, in fact, a rape has occurred. Gorman v. State, 480 S.W.2d 188 (Tex.Cr.App.1972).
The prosecutrix testified that on the night of the offense, she was alone and on foot late at night in a sparsely populated, industrial section of Corpus Christi, having been abandoned by her boyfriend in the
We hold that there is ample evidence in the record to support the conviction. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.