Bratton v. State

• Citation: 111 S.W.2d 259
• Decision Date: 15 December 1937
• Docket Number: No. 19255.,19255.
• Parties: BRATTON v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

111 S.W.2d 259

BRATTON v. STATE.

No. 19255.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

December 15, 1937.

Commissioners' Decision.

Appeal from District Court, Cottle County; Isaac O. Newton, Judge.

Justin Bratton was convicted for assault with intent to rape, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Clifford Graves, of Paducah, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant was charged with the offense of rape by force, but the jury found him guilty of an assault with intent to rape, and assessed his punishment at confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of five years.

The testimony adduced by the State shows that on the night of January 3, 1937, the prosecutrix was assisting one of the girls at Mrs. Newberry's Café. Appellant came into the café and told her that he was going to take Shorty Bratton home, who lived in the country about five or six miles, and invited her to go with him, to which she agreed. The parties got into appellant's car and took Bratton home. On their return trip, and when about one and one-half miles from town, appellant left the main highway and drove down a lateral road for about 100 yards, where he assaulted prosecutrix and by force had sexual intercourse with her. After he had accomplished his purpose, he got into his car with a view of taking her back to town, but she immediately fled and disappeared in the darkness. When she reached the café she was crying, her mouth was bleeding, her clothes torn, and her body bore marked evidence of rather rough treatment.

Appellant testified in his own behalf. He admitted that he intended to have sexual intercourse with prosecutrix; that when she would not willingly submit he cursed her and hit her hard; but at no time did he succeed in penetrating her.

Appellant insists that the evidence does not justify his conviction. We are unable to agree with him. His testimony makes a clear case of assault with intent to commit rape. Indeed, he is fortunate that the jury accepted his version of the affair rather than that of the young lady, for they might have dealt with him more severely.

By bill of exception No. 1, appellant complains of the introduction in evidence of the clothes worn by prosecutrix on the night in question. The bill discloses that the clothes were torn but were in the same condition as on said night immediately after the assault. This was clearly admissible on the issue of force and resistance. It tended to illustrate the kind and character of force that was resorted to by him in his endeavor to accomplish his purpose. See Jacobs v. State, 66 Tex.Cr.R. 146, 146 S.W. 558; Ulmer v....