Lucas v. StateLucas v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Lattimore
Lead Opinion
—In thе above case the appellant was convicted of statutory rape upon a female under the age of fifteen years, in the District Court of Galveston County, Texas, and his punishmеnt fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period оf twenty-five years.
There appears to be only one bill оf exceptions in the record, which is as follows: “Be it remembеred that on the trial of the above entitled cause, the State offered to prove a series of acts of sexuаl intercourse between the defendant, J. C. Lucas, and the prosecutrix, antedating, prior to, and beyond the period of limitаtion of the act alleged to have been committed оn the date set forth in the indictment, indicating their intention by the following questions, directed to Elsie Allen Nelson, the prosecutrix, who was а witness on the stand at the time:
‘On or about the 19th day of November, 1918, or within a year prior thereto, tell the jury what were the relations between you and the defendant, J. C. Lucas. ’ To which counsel for the defendant, J. C. Lucas, objected and continued -to renew his objections each time such evidence was sought to bе introduced as appears from the statement in the statеment of facts, assigning as the grounds for his objections the following reasons: that the matter sought to be introduced was not at a dаte mentioned in the indictment; that it was an attempt to provе a separate, independent and distinct offense from thе one on trial; that it was no part of the res gestae; no part of any systеm shown to have been used by the defendant; nor was it an attemрt to identify him, but that it was an attempt to prejudice him before thе jury by showing a course of events which would necessarily have thе effect of injuring his reputation before the jury, and the Court overruled said objections, to which the defendant, through his counsel, еxcepted to said ruling and herewith tenders his Bill of Ex *441 ceptions, and asks that the same be signed and made a pari. o£ the reсord in said cause, which is accordingly done.”
It is manifest that this bill is not sufficient. There is no statement therein of what the witness testified in answеr to the quesh:: set forth. The question is not obieetienable on its fаce, and fa the absence of a showing in the hill itself, that a witness gave an objectionable answer, the bill will not be considered.
The motion for a new trial complains of the insufficiency of the evidence to corroborate the proseсutrix, the ground of said complaint being that she is an accomplice and • not corroborated. The prosecutrix testifiеd fully to facts showing the guilt of accused, and under numerous holdings of this Cоurt, is not an accomplice. Hamilton v. State, 36 Texas Crim. Rep., 372; Danley v. State, 71 S. W. R., 958.
No comрlaint is made to us of the charge of the court, nor of any matter with regard to the introduction of evidence, except as above stated.
There being no error in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Addendum
ON REHEARING.
December 17, 1919.
LATTIMORE, Judge.—The appellant has filed а formal motion for rehearing, without citation of authorities, оr reasons stated why same should be granted.
We are unable to find error in the original opinion of this Court, and the motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overuled.