Coffee v. State
| Decision Date | 04 November 1903 |
| Citation | 76 S.W. 761 |
| Parties | COFFEE v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Lamar County; Ben H. Denton, Judge.
Gene Coffee was convicted of assault with intent to rape, and appeals. Reversed.
R. P. Lewis, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of an assault with intent to commit rape, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of seven years.
The only question that requires notice is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict and judgment. The facts show, substantially, that the parties were all colored; that appellant was standing on the streets of Paris, and prosecutrix and another woman passed; that he followed them a short distance, and in a public part of the town put his arms around prosecutrix and attempted to pull up her dress, saying nothing in the meantime. Both of the women screamed, and appellant hurriedly left the scene. It appears that he was known by prosecutrix and identified. This conduct was, no doubt, criminal, and subjected appellant to a prosecution for aggravated assault; but, as we understand the offense as defined by our statute, it was not an assault with intent to rape. Before one can be convicted of this offense, it must appear from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, and to this court with reasonable certainty, that the accused intended, if it became necessary, to force compliance with his desires at all events, and regardless of any resistance made by his victim. Dockery v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. App. 487, 34 S. W. 281; O'Brien v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 40 S. W. 969.
The judgment is accordingly reversed, and the cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Neil
...Ill. 633, 54 N.E. 296; Brown v. Commonwealth, 102 Ky. 227, 43 S.W. 214; Tyler v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. App. 10, 79 S.W. 558; Coffee v. State (Tex. Cr.), 76 S.W. 761; v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. Rep. 487, 34 S.W. 281, and cases.) In Anderson v. State, 82 Miss. 784, 35 So. 202, an instruction more acc......
-
Collins v. State
...Cr. App.) 40 S. W. 969; Wood v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 61 S. W. 308; Caddell v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. R. 213, 70 S. W. 91; Coffee v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 76 S. W. 761; House v. State, 9 Tex. App. 567; Saddler v. State, 12 Tex. App. 194-196; Peterson v. State, 14 Tex. App. 162; Jones v. State, ......
-
Dina v. State
...App.) 40 S. W. 969; Wood v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 61 S. W. 308; Caddell v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 70 S. W. 91; Coffee v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 76 S. W. 761, 8 Tex. Ct. Rep. 557. All these cases established the principle that there must be sufficient evidence to authorize the jury to believe ......
-
Vinsen v. State
...Cr. R. 487, 34 S. W. 281; Wood v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 61 S. W. 309; Caddell v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. R. 213, 70 S. W. 91; Coffee v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 76 S. W. 761; Warren v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 598, 103 S. W. 888; Steinke v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 65, 24 S. W. 909, 25 S. W. Because in o......