Cockrell v. State

Decision Date26 October 1910
Citation131 S.W. 221
PartiesCOCKRELL v. STATE.
CourtTexas 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.

McCORD, J.

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:

"I did not invite him into the house. I don't know how came him to come into the house. When he came in the house, he talked on a general conversation about his wife. He was a married man at that time, but had parted from his wife. After he stayed there a little while, I got up and started out the door, and seen him in the hall door, and when I got up he began to walk around the room, and he came up to me with the most hideous grin on his face I ever saw, and I knew something was the matter; and he says, `I want you to give me some, and you have got to give me some;' and I didn't answer him, and I went and sat down to the machine and begin to work; and he come over there and grabbed hold of my arm, and says, `You have got to give me some;' and I says, `No, I won't; and I will tell papa;' and he says, `You can't, and I will have it, or kill you and then have it.' He did take hold of me with the fiercest grip I ever had, and I still suffer with my arm from it. He just grabbed hold of my arm and jerked me, and I screamed; and he began to pace around the room, and I told him to turn me loose; and he said he was going to have it if he had to kill me, and would throw me in the backwater, and papa would not know what became of me; and I told him he would not, that he was afraid to; and I got up from the machine, just walking backwards and starting to run; and I turned and faced him and began to run backwards, and he was going after me, and I passed one of the doors going backwards. I picked up a little old pistol that happened to be left there on the dresser, as we made up the beds, I reckon; and I had it in my hand pulling the trigger, and it wouldn't do anything but just squeak. Q. Just go ahead and state to the jury the very exact words that he used to you. You will have to do that. A. He said if I didn't let him fuck me, he said he would cut my throat and have it any way, and he ran his hand in his pocket to get his knife out, and he heard some one holler, and he jumped out of the door and ran. When he said he would cut my throat and have it anyway, I was running backwards screaming, and some one hollered—I heard them. I suppose it was Mr. Madden that hollered, and the defendant jumped off the gallery and ran. This was in Panola county, state of Texas. Mr. Madden came there after the hollering. Mr. Madden is at court now. I don't know how long it was before Mr. Madden came. It seemed like an awful long time to me, but I don't suppose it was more than a few minutes. After defendant jumped off the gallery, I didn't do nothing more than run in the room and ring the telephone just as soon as he jumped off the gallery. I rang up my aunt. I did not make a statement to her over the 'phone of what had happened. I did speak of some trouble over the 'phone."

On cross-examination she testified: "My father and six brothers and Mrs. Louden and her children stayed at our house the night before this occurrence. My father and the children and mother went about 9 o'clock to go to Logansport, La., and left Mrs. Louden there with me."

On redirect, for the state, she stated: "Arthur Cockrell did unbutton his clothes there that day." Continuing on cross-examination: "They left...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Burnaman v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 7, 1913
    ...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
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 6, 1914
    ...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
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • April 26, 1978
    ...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
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • March 23, 1932
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT