Cole v. State
Citation | 40 Tex. 147 |
Parties | ALFRED COLE v. THE STATE. |
Decision Date | 01 January 1874 |
Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
1. In a motion for a new trial in a criminal case, the affidavit of the witness to the new matters relied on must be produced, or good reason shown for its absence.
The crime “seduction” is sufficiently described in the penal code.
The “injured female,” in prosecutions for seduction, is not a competent witness for the prosecution; but if her testimony is not objected to when offered, or its introduction insisted on in a motion for a new trial, the defendant will not be allowed to complain in the supreme court.
4. In trials for felony, the court is required to charge distinctly the law applicable to the case, whether asked or not; and a failure to do so, apparent on the record, is ground of reversal, whether assigned as error or not.
5. The “promise of marriage” is an essential part of the crime of seduction.
APPEAL from Cass. Tried below before the Hon. J. D. McAdoo.
Alfred Cole was indicted at the August term, 1873, for the seduction of Ferriby Miles, and at the same term was tried.
The court instructed the jury as follows:
The jury found the defendant guilty, and fixed the punishment at two years' confinement in the penitentiary.
Motion for a new trial on newly-discovered evidence, and motion in arrest of judgment, were both overruled, and defendant appealed.
D. B. Culberson, for appellant.
Browne, for the state.
The indictment charges, that Alfred Cole “did unlawfully and feloniously, and by promise to marry one Ferriby Miles, an unmarried woman under twenty-five years of age, seduce, and debauch, and have carnal knowledge of the said Ferriby Miles--he, said Alfred Cole, being an unmarried person.”
This portion of the indictment is quoted in order to present a clear view of one or more of the grounds of the motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment.
The defendant was found guilty by the jury, and his punishment was fixed at two years' confinement in the state penitentiary.
His motions were overruled, and he appeals, and assigns for error the ruling of the court in refusing the new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence.
The testimony proposed to be proved by the new witnesses is set out in the affidavit of the defendant, and is the only ground for the new trial. It is the statement of the defendant on information that the facts sought to be used on another trial can be proved by the witnesses, whose names and residences are given, stating the guilty connection between the witness Ran and Ferriby Miles, as proved by Ran on the trial.
The statute provides that a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered testimony shall be governed by the same rules as those which regulate civil suits. Under these rules, the affidavit of the new witness must be produced, or good cause shown why it is not done. The defendant failing to comply with this requirement, the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
The grounds of the motion in arrest of the judgment are...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carmell v Texas
..."for many years a seduced female was an incompetent witness as a matter of law." Holladay, 709 S. W. 2d, at 200. See, e.g., Cole v. State, 40 Tex. 147 (1874); see also Hernandez, 651 S. W. 2d, at 751_752 (tracing the current Article 38.07 to the earlier seduction victim competency rule). In......
-
Holladay v. State
...female was an incompetent witness as a matter of law. See Art. 1550, Section 3, 1859 Code of Criminal Procedure. Also see Cole v. State, 40 Tex. 147 (1874). The reason may also lie in the fact that corroboration in seduction cases was governed by a special statute and not the general statut......
-
Starke v. State
...to do so or not, to fully instruct on all the law of the case. (State v. Bransetter, 65 Mo. 149; State v. Banks, 73 Mo. 592; Cole v. State, 40 Tex. 147; Sanders v. State, 41 Tex. 306; Miers v. (Tex.) 29 S.W. 1074; Charlton v. Sate, 43 Neb. 373; Pjarou v. State, 47 Neb. 294; Fulcher v. State......
-
Nash v. State
...or the expressions of contrition for the seduction, and by a promise made after the seduction to marry the girl after a time." Cole v. State, 40 Tex. 147; Rice v. Com., 102 Pa. 408; People v. Clark, 33 Mich. 112; People v. Millspaugh, 11 Mich. The testimony of the witness Katie Weddle does ......