Cockrell v. State
Decision Date | 26 October 1910 |
Citation | 131 S.W. 221 |
Parties | COCKRELL v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Panola County; W. C. Buford, Judge.
Arthur Cockrell was convicted of assault with intent to rape, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
J. G. Woolworth and H. N. Nelson, for appellant. John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was tried and convicted in the court below of assault with intent to rape, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of three years; hence this appeal.
We find in the record a bill of exception to the action of the court in overruling the defendant's application for a continuance. The bill of exception discloses that the diligence was sufficient, and, further, that when the application for continuance was presented in the court below the same was overruled by the court on the statement of the district attorney that he would procure the attendance of said witnesses. On the trial of the case the prosecuting witness, Eliza Hanson, being sworn, testified that her name now is Mrs. Eliza Holmes, having married Holmes after the alleged commission of the offense. The witness, continuing, stated that she lived in Panola county, Tex., with her father, and that on the 27th day of May her father left home, leaving herself and Mrs. Louden at the house; that their house was situated on the banks of the Sabine river, and on that day the river was very high; that there was a slough between the house and the mainland, and in time of high water it cut off the house from the mainland; that, in order to get to the mainland, they had to go across the slough in a boat; that it was understood that she was to go out that evening, and Mr. Madden was to come and get her; that the defendant came, and took Mrs. Louden across; that Mrs. Louden left after dinner, and the defendant took her across the backwater, and after Mrs. Louden left the defendant came to the house where she was alone, and stated that he came after a square, and witness told him that it was at the mill, she supposed; that the defendant walked toward the mill, and was gone some 10 or 15 minutes, and then came into the hall of the house, and at that time she was sewing. Continuing, the witness says:
On cross-examination she testified:
On redirect, for the state, she stated: "Arthur Cockrell did unbutton his clothes there that day." Continuing on cross-examination: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burnaman v. State
...testimony, or by questions put to him on his examination." This court has expressly held this in several decisions. Cockrell v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 128, 131 S. W. 221; Porch v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 11, 99 S. W. 1122; Bonnard v. State, 25 Tex. App. 195, 7 S. W. 862, 8 Am. St. Rep. 431. So......
-
Roberts v. State
...804; People v. Brooks, 131 N. Y. 321, 30 N. E. 189; Brink v. Stratton, 176 N. Y. 150, 68 N. E. 148, 63 L. R. A. 182; Cockrell v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 128, 131 S. W. 221; Porch v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 11, 99 S. W. 1122; Porch v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 340, 99 S. W. 102; Bonnard v. State, 25......
-
Green v. State
...v. State (1925) 99 Tex.Crim. 410, 269 S.W. 799; Hopper v. State (1925) 102 Tex.Crim. 313, 277 S.W. 636." Cf. Cockrell v. State, 60 Tex.Cr.R. 124, 131 S.W. 221 (1910), a case apparently to the The rule is comparable to the one for impeaching a witness with a prior inconsistent statement. To ......
-
Hale v. State
...witness does not deprive the accused in a proper case of the right to a new trial. Jackson v. State, 18 Tex. App. 586; Cockrell v. State 60 Tex. Cr. R. 124, 131 S. W. 221. It has also been held in this state that newly discovered testimony as to the declarations of the alleged injured party......