Davis v. State
| Decision Date | 09 December 1896 |
| Parties | DAVIS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Dallas county; Charles F. Clint, Judge.
Phil Davis was convicted of seduction, and appeals. Reversed.
J. O. Davis, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of seduction, and given four years in the penitentiary, and prosecutes this appeal.
1. Appellant excepted to the action of the court in refusing to permit him to prove by Walter Scott, Scott Baldwin, and Gus Payton that each had had carnal knowledge of the prosecutrix. The objection to this testimony was that it was proposed to prove by these witnesses that the act of carnal intercourse had taken place since October, 1895, when the proof showed that the seduction is alleged to have taken place. Appellant claimed that the testimony was admissible for two purposes: (1) To contradict the prosecutrix, who stated that she never at any time had had carnal intercourse with any person except the defendant; and (2) that it was admissible as going to the gist of the offense charged in this case, to wit, the seduction of the prosecutrix. We believe the testimony was admissible for both these purposes. The prosecutrix had testified that no person had had carnal intercourse with her except the defendant; and this testimony was admissible to contradict her evidence. Furthermore, the vital question in this case was whether or not defendant had seduced the prosecutrix; that is, whether, by a promise of marriage, he had led her from the paths of virtue and chastity, and induced her to submit to his embraces. It is true that if the prosecutrix had previously led a chaste life, and in October the defendant had practiced upon her credulity by his arts and wiles, and by a promise of marriage had succeeded in seducing her, it would not be a defense to this action to show that subsequently she became a lewd woman, or a prostitute. But the fact that subsequent to October, when it is alleged the seduction in this case occurred, she had carnal intercourse with other men promiscuously, might serve to shed some light upon her character as being a chaste woman at the very time the act of seduction is alleged to have occurred; and we do not believe the jury should have been deprived of this fact.
2. When the prosecutrix was on the stand on cross-examination, the defendant asked her "if it was not a fact that she had carnal intercourse with Walter Scott, in Dallas, during Christmas week, and also in May, 1896; and also if she did not, at the house of Lucy Davis, near Carrolton, Dallas county, Texas, in February, 1896, tell said Lucy Davis that she was in a family way, and had gotten so at Dallas during Christmas." The court did not permit these questions to be asked the prosecutrix. The defendant insisted upon said testimony, in order to lay the predicate to impeach her. He stated that he proposed to impeach her by the testimony of Walter Scott and Lucy Davis. In view of the fact that the evidence showed that the prosecutrix was enceinte (said to have occurred by connection with the defendant during October and December), and that the state's evidence attributed her condition to the defendant, we believe that it was permissible for the defendant to have laid the predicate for the impeachment of this witness, and to have impeached her upon these matters, as they appear to have been material in this case.
3. In the charge to the jury the court instructed them, "if they believed beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix had had carnal knowledge with other men since October, 1895, that they could then only look to such acts of carnal intercourse since October for the purpose of assisting them to determine...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knight v. State
...St. Rep. 834; Parks v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 380, 33 S. W. 872; Creighton v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 101, 51 S. W. 910; Davis v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 550, 38 S. W. 174; Nolan v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. R. 436, 88 S. W. 242; Jeter v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 212, 106 S. W. 371; Caviness v. State, 42 ......
-
Satterwhite v. State
...conduct with other parties than defendant. We do not know what the bills in that case contained, but the case of Davis v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. Rep. 548, 38 S. W. 174, is cited in support of the above holding, and reference to that case reveals that in it the defense wished to prove by three m......
-
Polk v. State
...us. We have made search for authorities from our own state, and none have come to our attention. Appellant refers us to Davis v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 550, 38 S. W. 174, and Creighton v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 101, 51 S. W. 910, as supporting the admissibility of this testimony. The cases ci......
-
Williams v. State
...with other men, the fortification of prior chastity would be thus attacked and might be entirely overthrown. In Davis v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 548, 38 S. W. 174, evidence of acts of intercourse with others than the accused, occurring subsequent to an alleged seduction, were held admissible ......