Botello v. State, 22296.
Decision Date | 18 November 1942 |
Docket Number | No. 22296.,22296. |
Citation | 165 S.W.2d 903 |
Parties | BOTELLO v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Webb County; R. D. Wright, Judge.
Francisco Botello was convicted of rape, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Horace C. Hall, Jr., Francisco J. Flores, and Bismark Pope, all of Laredo, for appellant.
Spurgeon E. Bell, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is rape. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a period of forty years.
There are no bills of exception in the record or any objections to the court's charge. Consequently the only question to be considered by this court is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction.
Appellant vigorously asserts that the evidence is insufficient in the following respects: (a) Because the injured female denied any act of sexual intercourse with appellant; (b) because the injured female was over fifteen years of age at the time of the alleged act and was not a chaste and virtuous girl; (c) because the evidence is insufficient to show the use of that degree of force necessary to overcome all resistance of a female over the age of fifteen years who is not a virgin; and (d) because the conviction of an accused cannot be sustained on his extrajudicial confession alone.
By reason of the foregoing contentions we have carefully reviewed the record from which it appears that when appellant was arrested he made a written confession to the officers after he was duly warned as required by law. In this confession, which was introduced in evidence, he stated that Eufemia Botello was his daughter; that she was fifteen years of age; that when Eufemia became a young lady last year he "began to want to use her"; that at the beginning she would not let him, but in September he was able to force her and had sexual intercourse with her; that up to the time of the making of the confession they had had six acts of sexual intercourse. On his trial appellant took the witness stand and, on direct examination by his counsel, repudiated the confession and testified that the statements made therein were not true; that at the time of making the confession he was sick, his head hurt and he was afraid. However, on cross-examination by the State's Attorney he testified that the statement in the confession to the effect that he did have carnal knowledge of his daughter in September was true. The State did not rely upon his extrajudicial confession alone but upon the judicial confession made in open court during the trial of his case.
Appellant further contends that even if it be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Green
...People v. Manske, 399 Ill. 176, 77 N.E.2d 164; Harper v. State, 1945, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 354, 187 S.W.2d 570, 571; Botello v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 50, 165 S.W.2d 903, 904. The testimony of an accused at the trial may constitute a judicial confession, (Botello v. State,) or such confession may co......
-
Franco v. State, 54410
...wasn't any confession in open Court." We agree. Fancher v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 269, 319 S.W.2d 707, 708 (1958); Botello v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 50, 165 S.W.2d 903, 904 (1942). "Judicial confessions are those which are made before the magistrate, or court, in the due course of legal proceed......