Frazier v. State
| Decision Date | 19 April 1905 |
| Citation | 86 S.W. 754 |
| Parties | FRAZIER v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Hopkins County; R. L. Porter, Judge.
Mason Frazier was convicted of assault with intent to rape, and appeals. Reversed.
Leach & McBride, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was charged by indictment with assault with intent to rape Emma Frazier. The facts disclose that she was his wife; that they were married in 1889, and had lived as husband and wife until 1902. As the result of their marriage, four children were born, the oldest being 14 at the time of the trial and the youngest 8. That some time during the year 1902 prosecutrix informed appellant that she would no longer cohabit with him and this she termed a "separation." Later on she undertook to obtain a divorce from her husband, which was refused by the court. They remained in the same house; she sleeping in one room, with her little girl, and appellant in another room, with the boys. Appellant supported the family, provided for their wants, attended to the business about the place and farm, and prosecutrix performed the ordinary duties devolving upon the wife in regard to household matters, doing the cooking and such kindred things, and they all ate at the same table. On the occasion of the alleged assault appellant entered her room, and rather vigorously insisted upon what he believed to be his rights as a husband. She resisted, and fled into the room where the boys were sleeping. Appellant followed her in there, and again renewed his efforts. She finally escaped, however, and the matter ended. We deem it unnecessary to go any further into the details.
Two important questions suggested can be condensed into: First, objections to the use of the wife as a witness against the husband in this character of case; and, second, appellant could not be guilty of an assault to rape his wife. Both of these contentions, in our judgment, are correct. Our statute with reference to rape provides for the punishment of a man who undertakes to have forcible connection with a woman without her consent; second, where the woman is insane; and, third, on a girl under 15 years, with or without consent, provided she is not the wife of the accused. It has never been held necessary, so far as we are aware, to allege in an indictment that an assaulted woman was not the wife of the accused; nor would it be so in this state, except for the latter clause of the statute with reference to girls under 15 years...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. De Stefano
...the rape of his wife, he could be held liable as the aider or abetter of a third person who committed said rape. In Frazier v. State, 48 Tex.Crim. 142, 86 S.W. 754 (1905), the spouses were living separately in the marital residence after a divorce had been denied to them. No conjugal relati......
-
Lane v. State
...GINSBERG AND ISADORE GINSBERG, MARYLAND CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE 258 (1940); 65 AM.JUR.2D Rape, § 39 (1972); Frazier v. State, 48 Tex.Crim. 142, 86 S.W. 754 (App.1905); State v. Haines, 25 So. (La.1899); State v. Huffman, 141 W.Va. 55, 87 S.E.2d 541 (1955); State v. Dowell, 106 N.C. 722, ......
-
State v. Smith
...448 (1949); Baugh v. State, 402 S.W.2d 768 (Tex.Crim.App.1966); State v. Parsons, 285 S.W. 412 (Mo.Sup.Ct., 1926). Cf. Frazier v. State, 48 Tex.Cr.R. 142, 86 S.W. 754 (Ct. of The State urges that our rape statute does brand as criminal a forcible sexual attack by a husband upon his wife bec......
-
State v. Bell
...A husband is legally incapable of raping his wife. See Duggins v. State, 76 Okla.Cr. 168, 135 P.2d 347 (1943); Frazier v. State, 48 Tex.Cr.R. 142, 86 S.W. 754 (1905). Defendant does not contend that there was any evidence--and there was none--from which the jury could have inferred that the......