Campos v. State
| Decision Date | 07 February 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 34170,34170 |
| Parties | Reynaldo Alfredo CAMPOS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Sanderson & Bagley, Amarillo, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is rape by force; the punishment, 99 years.
The undisputed evidence shows that appellant, a 32 year old brother of one of her tenants in an appartment house adjoining her residence, went to the home of the prosecutrix, a 61 year old widow, about 11:30 P.M. and said he wanted to make a telephone call; that he made advances toward her and she scratched his face and screamed until he prevented her from doing so by putting his hand over her mouth; that after she fell or was pushed on to the floor of her bedroom, appellant attempted to have sexual relations with her, and did soon thereafter accomplish his purpose on the bed.
The prosecutrix testified that appellant sprang at her, forced her into the bedroom and on to the floor, removed her underclothes and opened his trousers; that he jerked her to her feet; pushed her on the bed, and that she resisted throughout with all the strength she had.
Appellant testified that he put his arm around the waist of the prosecutrix as she stood at her bedroom door; that she screamed, put her hand on his face and scratched him; that she fell on the floor of the bedroom; it scared him when she screamed and he put his hand over her mouth as she started to fall so she wouldn't scream, and she quit. It was his testimony that thereafter she did not resist but suggested that they get on the bed, and 'seemed to be pretty willing' to the intercourse.
Immediately upon getting out of the room the prosecutrix went to a neighbor's home and, calling her, said: We find no error in the admission of the testimony of the prosecutrix as to such outcry or report. Torbert v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 311, 313 S.W.2d 303.
Also, the neighbor testified to the same facts without objection.
We find the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction and do not deem it necessary to set out the testimony corroborating the testimony of the prosecutrix.
We see no error in the admission of the prosecutrix' testimony that she was a widow. If there was, the question was asked and answered before any objection was made and there was no request that the evidence be withdrawn. James v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 335 S.W.2d 603.
The admission of the testimony of the prosecutrix that appellant was trying to sexually attack her and that he had enormous strength and she had none does not present reversible error under the record.
The testimony as to the general reputation for virtue and chastity of the prosecutrix, offered after appellant had testified that she did not resist but in effect consented, was properly admitted. Myres v. State, 129 Tex.Cr.R. 468, 88 S.W.2d 109; Warren v. State, 54 Tex.Cr.R. 443, 114 S.W. 380; Holland v. State, 60 Tex.Cr.R. 117, 131 S.W. 563; 4 Branch's Ann.P.C.2d Ed., 286, Sec. 1960.
No error is shown in the admission of the evidence obtained as a result of the search of the apartment. As has been stated, appellant was not a tenant and the apartment house belonged to the prosecutrix who authorized the search. In addition, appellant testified to the same facts shown by the testimony to which he objected.
Several claims for reversal relate to the court's charge. One complains that the jury was not instructed that there must be resistance upon the part of Mrs. Evans.
The charge contains the following: 'Before you can convict the defendant of the alleged offense, you must believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. J. E. Evans not only did not consent, but that she put forth her utmost resistance, using every exertion in her power to prevent the defendant from having sexual intercourse with her, considering the relative size and strength of the parties and conditions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
James v. State
...include the following: Gill v. State, 84 Tex.Cr.R. 531, 208 S.W. 926; Cage v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 355, 320 S.W.2d 364; Campos v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 179, 356 S.W.2d 317; Rymer v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 656, 353 S.W.2d 35; Cotton v. State, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 36, 32 S.W.2d 648; Davis v. State, 165......
-
State v. Kaiser
...hearsay exception for "outcry" in rape cases. Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 697 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); Campos v. State, 172 Tex.Crim.R. 179, 356 S.W.2d 317, 318 (1962). The constitutional rights of the defendant are not implicated by this rule, 3 and we find that evidence excluded because......
-
Holland v. State
...creates an exception to the hearsay rule, similar to the longstanding hearsay exception for "outcry" in rape cases. See Campos v. State, 356 S.W.2d 317 (Tex.Cr.App.1962); Sentell v. State, 30 S.W. 226 (Tex.Cr.App.1895); 1A Ray, Texas Law of Evidence, §§ 927-928 (3rd ed. 1980 & We do not rea......
-
Hagans v. State
...bills is shown by the record. Therefore, they cannot be considered. Beale v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 319, 350 S.W.2d 207; Campos v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 356 S.W.2d 317. However, these bills have been examined and it is concluded that they do not present The complaints of the court's action in o......