Estep v. State

• Decision Date: 25 May 1927
• Docket Number: (No. 10864.)
• Citation: 298 S.W. 283
• Parties: ESTEP v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

298 S.W. 283

ESTEP v. STATE.

(No. 10864.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 25, 1927.

Rehearing Denied October 12, 1927.

Commissioners' Decision.

Appeal from District Court, Live Oak County; T. M. Cox, Judge.

Richard Estep was convicted of seduction, and he appeals. Affirmed.

T. H. Miller, of George West, for appellant.

Sam D. Stinson, State's Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

BAKER, J.

The appellant was convicted of seduction, and his punishment assessed at five years in the penitentiary.

The indictment charges that the appellant, on or about April 15, 1924, unlawfully seduced Erie Webster, an unmarried female under the age of 25 years, under a promise of marriage. The record discloses that the prosecutrix was about 15 years of age at the time of the alleged offense, that the appellant was about 24 years of age, and that appellant and prosecutrix, whose parents were neighbors, had been going together constantly for two or three months prior to the alleged offense and went together continously thereafter until the latter part of November or the first part of December, 1924. It appears that during the latter part of November or the first part of December, prosecutrix's father, having been informed that his daughter was pregnant, went to appellant and demanded that he marry the prosecutrix. The appellant did not deny that he was responsible for the prosecutrix's condition, and did not refuse to marry her, but requested that the matter be delayed in order that he might confer with his father, promising to return and take the matter up again with prosecutrix's father. However, appellant did not return, but borrowed money from his brother-in-law, took the train at San Antonio during the night, and went to Oklahoma. The prosecutrix testified that it was upon a promise of marriage that she yielded to the persistent solicitations of appellant to have intercourse with her, and that she would not have done so except for the promise of marriage. She further testified that her first act of intercourse with the appellant took place on April, 15, 1924, and that she and appellant continued to have illicit sexual relations once or twice each week thereafter until a short time prior to appellant's departure for Oklahoma. The appellant took the stand and admitted the act of intercourse on April 15, 1924, and many acts thereafter, but denied that he ever promised to marry the prosecutrix.

There is but one bill of exception in the record, and it complains of the action of the court in overruling appellant's third application for continuance for the want of the testimony of Mrs. Eula Bradshaw, an alleged resident of Jackson county, Phillip Troup, who resided in Live Oak county at the time of issuance of process, and Oscar Johnson, whose last residence was alleged to have been in Goliad county. The trial court refused to grant this application upon the ground that it was the third application for continuance, and that he did not consider the same to be sufficient.

Regarding the witness Mrs. Bradshaw, the application alleges that she had attended the former terms of the court, but that she was unable to attend the term at which appellant was tried on account of sickness, which fact was substantiated by the unsworn statement of a physician. Appellant alleged that he expected said witness to testify "to such acts of the prosecuting witness (Erie Webster) as will show her chastity prior to the time the defendant is charged with having committed the offense which he stands charged was such as would lead any one to believe that she was unchaste," etc. Appellant further alleged that he expected said witness to testify that she heard a conversation between the...