Burnett v. State
| Decision Date | 22 April 1893 |
| Citation | 22 S.W. 47 |
| Parties | BURNETT v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Gonzales county; M. Kennon, Judge.
Appeal by James Burnett from a conviction for incest. Affirmed.
Glass & Burgess, for appellant. R. L. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of incest, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary, from which he appeals. The sole question raised in the case is whether the state can prove the crime of incest by evidence of more than one act. This is not an open question. It is well settled that in prosecutions for adultery, or for illicit intercourse of any class, evidence is admissible of sexual acts between the same parties prior to, or, when indicating continuousness of illicit relations, even subsequent to, the act specifically under trial. Whart. Crim. Ev. § 35. The testimony tends strongly to establish illicit relations, long continued, between the parties, and, if true, there can be no question of appellant's guilt. The judgment is affirmed. Judges all present and concurring.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Battles v. State
...We confess that the reasons for the admissibility of such testimony in the one case seem equally cogent in the other. Burnett v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 87, 22 S. W. 47, and particularly see Bish. St. Crimes, § 682. However, as stated before, no authority can be found extending this doctrine ......
-
Skidmore v. State
...of the recent case of Barrett v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 182, 115 S. W. 1187. That case was decided upon the authority of Burnett v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 86, 22 S. W. 47. The Burnett Case had been overruled in Clifton v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. R. 18, 79 S. W. 824, 108 Am. St. Rep. 983, and follo......
-
Alexander v. State
...466, and Pridemore v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 564, 129 S. W. 1112, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 858, excluding such evidence, and Burnett v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 86, 22 S. W. 47, Williamson v. State, 72 Tex. Cr. R. 618, 163 S. W. 435, Van Smith v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. R. 454, 142 S. W. 1173, Cain v. St......
-
Rodriguez v. State
...The authorities on both sides are referred to in the Alexander Case, supra, but are not discussed at length. In Burnett v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 86, 22 S. W. 47, this court stated in the opinion that the sole question raised in the case was whether the state could prove the crime of incest ......