Dockery v. State
Decision Date | 26 February 1896 |
Citation | 34 S.W. 281 |
Parties | DOCKERY v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Wise county; J. W. Patterson, Judge.
Lewis Dockery was convicted of an assault with intent to rape, and appeals from a judgment on the verdict. Reversed.
McMurray & Gose, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of an assault with intent to rape, and his punishment assessed at three years' confinement in the penitentiary, and prosecutes this appeal.
A very remarkable procedure was had in this case, without any authority in law. It appears that the wife of the defendant was before the grand jury as a witness for the prosecution. This offense is not of that character as would permit the wife to become a witness against the husband. Counsel for appellant, because of the fact that the wife was a witness before the grand jury to procure the bill, moved to set aside the bill. This motion was overruled. In this there was no error. We cannot look behind the return of the grand jury, and set aside an indictment because improper evidence has been received, or testimony of witnesses taken who were not competent to testify in the case.
To constitute the offense of an assault with intent to commit rape, 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. See Rex v. Lloyd, 7 Car. & P. 318; Reg. v. Wright, 4 Fost. & F. 967; Com. v. Merrill, 14 Gray, 415; Reynolds v. People, 41 How. Prac. 179; Joice v. State, 53 Ga. 50; State v. Burgdorf, 53 Mo. 65; Mahoney v. People, 43 Mich. 39, 4 N. W. 546; State v. Hagerman, 47 Iowa, 151; Taylor v. State, 50 Ga. 79; Brown v. State, 27 Tex. App. 330, 11 S. W. 412; Shields v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. 498, 23 S. W. 893. The question before us is, whether the testimony in this case fills the measure of proof in this particular. We are of opinion that it does not, and therefore the motion for a new trial, upon the ground of the insufficiency of the testimony, should have been sustained. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Neil
... ... victim." ( McCullough v. State (Tex.), 47 S.W ... 990; Adams v. People, 179 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; Dockery ... 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 accurately stating the law than did this No ... 2 was given, and yet the case was reversed on this ground ... alone. The vice of this ... ...
-
State v. Owens
... ... People, 197 Ill. 169, 64 ... N.E. 385; State v. Kendall, 56 Kan. 238, 42 P. 711; ... State v. Sullivan, 68 Vt. 540, 35 A. 479; State ... v. Hanlon, 62 Vt. 334, 19 A. 773; State v ... McCune, 16 Utah 170, 51 P. 818; State v ... Courtemarch, 11 Wash. 446, 39 P. 955; Dockery v ... State, 35 Tex. Crim. Rep. 487, 34 S.W. 281; Farmer ... v. State, Tex. Crim. Rep. , 45 S.W. 701; State v ... Page, 127 N.C. 512, 37 S.E. 66; State v ... Williams, 121 N.C. 628, 28 S.E. 405; State v ... Deberry, 123 N.C. 703, 31 S.E. 272; DeBerry v ... State, 99 Tenn. 207, ... ...
-
State v. Wilson
... ... punishment cannot take the place of proof establishing the ... elements of an assault with intent to rape. The court is not ... justified in sanctioning a conviction where the evidence ... falls short of the requirements contemplated by the statute ... defining the offense. Dockery vs. State, 35 Tex. Crim. 487, ... 34 S.W. 281." ... The ... case of Enfield vs. State, 94 Tex. Crim. 226, 250 ... S.W. 162, is apropos in which the court said: ... "The ... appellant was an old man, and the circumstances detailed by ... the state witnesses were such as to ... ...
-
State v. Chance
...(Del.) 140, 78 Atl. 305; State v. Kelliher, 49 Or. 77, 88 Pac. 867; State v. Boyd 2 Hill (S. C.) 288, 27 Am. Dec. 376; Dockery v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 487, 34 S. W. 281; Kingsbury v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 259, 39 S. W. 365; Lee v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. R. 567, 148 S. W. 567, 40 L. R. A. (N. S......