Elam v. State
| Citation | 20 S.W. 710 |
| Parties | ELAM v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 03 December 1892 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from district court, Medina county; THOS. M. PASCHAL, Judge.
Will Elam was convicted of assault with intent to rape, and appeals. Reversed.
Geo. Powell, for appellant. R. L. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Defendant was convicted of an assault with intent to rape Josie Hughes, a girl under the age of 12 years, and was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment in the penitentiary, from which sentence he appeals to this court. The only witness to the assault was Josie Hughes, who testified before the examining trial that defendant made an indecent proposal to her, but did not come within 10 feet of her. On the trial of the case she testified that when defendant made the proposal he placed his hand upon her person, but outside of her clothes; and accounted for the change in her testimony by saying that her parents told her to swear so, but that her former testimony was true. The parents were both present at the trial, but made no attempt to explain their conduct. The testimony, therefore, bears upon its face the reasonable doubt of which the jury should have given the defendant the benefit. The court should have granted a new trial.
The cause is reversed and remanded.
HURT, P. J., concurs. DAVIDSON, J., absent.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State, 42432
......1977, p. 300, it is stated:. 'Penetration is necessary to be proved upon a trial for rape, and a conviction for rape will not be sustained if penetration is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Davis v. State, 43 Tex. 189; Baldwin v. State, 15 Tex.App. 275; Elam" v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 20 S.W. 710; Blair v State, Tex.Cr.App., 56 S.W. 622; Duckworth v. State, 42 Tex.Cr.R. 74, 75, 57 S.W. 665; Petty v. State, 94 Tex.Cr.R. 114, 249 S.W. 849; Vasquez v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 376, 167 S.W.2d 1030; Lozano v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 229, 226 S.W.2d 118.'. \xC2"......
-
Adams v. State, 24150.
...established by the testimony, and it must go beyond a mere possibility of such intent. House v. State, 9 Tex.App. 567, 568. Elam v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 20 S.W. 710; Shields v. State, 32 Tex.Cr.R. 498, 23 S. W. 893; Laco v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 38 S.W. 176; Graybill v. State, 41 Tex.Cr.R. 286......
-
Tinker v. State
...R. 506, 148 S. W. 713; Edmondson v. State, 68 Tex. Cr. R. 113, 150 S. W. 917; Draper v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 57 S. W. 655; Elam v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 20 S. W. 710; Blair v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 56 S. W. 622; Duckworth v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 75, 57 S. W. 665; Galaviz v. State, 82 Tex.......
-
State v. Riseling
......This is not the. law. State v. White, 52 Mo.App. 285; State v. Owsley, 102 Mo. 678; State v. Priestly, 74 Mo. 24; Taylor v. State, 24 Tex.App. 299; Bishop,. Statutory Crimes (3 Ed.), sec. 496; State v. Briggs,. 93 Iowa 125; Murphy v. State, 120 Ind. 115; Elam. v. State, 20 S.W. 710; State v. Harney, 101 Mo. 472; Smith v. State, 80 Am. Dec. 360. . . Edward. C. Crow, Attorney-General, and C. D. Corum for the State;. Cole, Burnett & Williams of counsel. . . (1) The. information is sufficient. State v. Wray, ......