*1 sufficiently described charged.
he was
Relator's which he charged is misdemeanor therefore not an offense for which
could be extradited without merit. parte Estep,
In Ex phrase this Court held that the 1008a,
“or other crime” in Art. Section of Ann.C.C.P.,
Vernon’s Uniform Criminal Ex Act, included
tradition misdemeanors. of the trial court is af-
firmed. ROPER, Appellant,
Jimmie Curtis Texas, Appellee. STATE Texas. Criminal
Court of
Jan. 19, 1964.
Rehearing Denied
ported raped. She was that had been she remаined, hospital then taken to the and couple days A overnight. later (prosecutrix) appellant’s; she identified raped the voice as that of man who her.. Parish, Tyler, K. Knight, Welby A.Will appellant’s She had not until seen the face Gilmer, appellant. for trial, beginning of nor she the recall ever speaking to in Austin, Douglas, Atty., Leon B. State’s for the State. Appellant’s confession was admitted into McDonald, judge. evidence and reflects that in he lived the apartment same house as prosecutrix the rape force; punish- offense is the The and that his wife had gone been for about ment, penitentiary in the confinement for week; a that only spoken prose- he had years. оn cutrix one occasion and had never had a conversation with her. On the afternoon prosecu- The evidence reflects that question, in apartment he went into her year trix was a old woman who had lived around carrying 3:00 a butcher knife and years in for for an five and worked tape stayed adhesive and there un- company Upon community. oil in that til around 5 o’clock. The remainder of walking aрartment from work to her on the the substantially confession contains evening question, in entering and her front same account of the of the commission door, up a man came behind her his and prosecutrix offense as that stated above. nose, left hand her across mоuth and thus preventing breathing. her from Prosecu- Photographs and trix testified that she could not see her at introduced, showing bed were the bed to be tacker’s face and that he held knife to a disarranged. tape and The adhesive Vene- throat; every her do that told her to tian blinds cords were also into introduced thing get that he said and she would evidence. hurt; pulled man her back into Isham, strips city bathroom Herbеrt tape two detective for where of adhesive were stuck confirmed that tape to the wall. The was sub statement sequently placed eyes her she identified over mouth and in voice at doctor, Hunt, prevent sight such a station. Dr. manner as to or C. R. a medical state, speech. throat, The who knife was still at and was called as witness her prosecutrix about she feared testified that he examined fоr her life. The man took her her bed an hour after incident had occurred and he tied where her cord wrists wrists, found abrasions scratches оn her or undressed her. He then had inter portion fine of her her, parts scratch the middle placing private course with his in hers, sperm neck and sexual or male Upon finishing, without numerous her consent. vagina. her cells were found in her assailant talked to her about 35 minutes, removing tape from her mouth jury The returned verdict favorable prosecutrix enable her to answer. The state, find the sufficient and we evidencе that testified she did not she scream because support their verdict. inwas fear of her life. exception bills There are no formal further testified that aft- testify Appellant or the record. left, upon herself, er her freeing assailant offer evidence behalf. she found telephone to be disconnected up. but was complains able to her court hook She called the trial manager pеrmitting office re- cross-ex- where she worked and erred only spoken time; prosecutrix in an he had
amine day; to work charactеr. she had been to be of unchaste he tied bed, bill, her to the held a knife to her throat For testified, jury and that she fear of her life. outside *3 tеstimony response interrogation by appellant’s also reflects a counsel, total lack of consent. that on the afternоon pills quantity birth control there was a of prosecutrix’s testimony that she apartment, used but she had never person intercourse with anоther prevent conception but rather day alleged to the offense would regulate also help flow. She her menstrual explain not have tended to the condition of having admitted to intercourse private parts alleged after the act of person other by appellant. intercourse with her Appellant issue of consent insists Thus we that this is with- find appellant pleaded not was raised when thе nothing out merit as bill reflects guilty indictment and that since might explain prosecutrix’s which unchas- raised, was character tity in a manner consistent with defendant’s cases into issue. The was innocence. this by in his behalf cited statutory rape is matter are cases which complains thаt reversible rape by force, as in the Assistant error when the was committed instant cause. Attorney Detective District asked follow- Deрartment the Police agree that the issue of We when ing: raised, proof specific consent is of instances Monday night Grimes, “Q: Mr. unchastity appellant may of be admis was at the defendant sible, however, agree that we cannot station, you take by plea issue of is оf not raised anywhere ? guilty rape by in a cause in which force is rape by is offense. When Yes, “A: Sir. force and there is no issue of consent “Q: is no defense that the woman was not Where was that? State,
chaste female.
145 Tex.Cr.
poly-
and run
“A: We carried
315,
R.
457 State, your also Fite v. motion. See "The Overrule Court: 848; S.W.2d Tex. Jones exception.” Knight: “Mr. Note our Cr.R. very next as the No bad faith is indicated Appellant’s rehearing motion is over- Attorney District question of the Assistant ruled. seeking. shows the answer he was Q: you to his Did take him Monday.” *4 Offiсer answer of what not reflect unresponsive and did The Court was. result of the test consider jury not to
properly instructed no purpose and thus answer for ROBERTSON, Appellant, Edward Lee reflected. error is reversible error, Finding reversible no affirmed. Texas, Appellee. The STATE оf APPELLANT’S MOTION
ON FOR REHEARING Court of Criminal of Texas. WOODLEY, Judge. Presiding
n challenges our hold re not err in
ing that trial court permit upon cross-examina
fusing to
tion ques
sexual intercourse
tion.
In 60 Tex.Cr.R. Ross said: p.
S.W. at this Court
“ * * * surroundings and If the
physical or the con facts of the assault parties previous thereto
duct as that
were of such a character suggested,
question then of consent is gen
in this character of case reputation
eral would be fact, every
admissible. But when parties is
when the conduct be jury, everything
fore the excludes idea it would be idle simply by to rebut chastity.
proof of a want of Such become material question
where there is * n * prosecutrix. In idea,
this case the evidence excludes no as to the force
used and want of consent.”