Gainer v. State
Decision Date | 15 June 1921 |
Docket Number | (No. 6326.) |
Citation | 232 S.W. 830 |
Parties | GAINER v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Matagorda County; M. S. Munson, Judge.
Harry Gainer was convicted of seduction, and he appeals. Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
W. M. Holland, of Houston, Matt Cramer, of Jewett, and John F. Perry, of Bay City, for appellant.
R. H. Hamilton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Conviction is for the offense of seduction. Punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of six years.
The prosecutrix testified to her seduction by the appellant. The law, it is true, requires corroboration to both the act of intercourse and the promise of marriage, but, without detailing them, we express the view that the corroborating evidence in the instant case was not insufficient as a matter of law. Slaughter v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 527, 218 S. W. 767; Nash v. State, 61 Tex. Cr. R. 287, 134 S. W. 709; Wright v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 359, 20 S. W. 756, 37 Am. St. Rep. 822. It is said in one of the cases cited:
On the promise of marriage there was evidence of association, and the declaration by appellant, in the presence of the mother of prosecutrix, that "we are to be married on the 17th of September." This was related by the mother, and in connection therewith surrounding circumstances from which the jury was authorized to draw the inference that the statement referred to the prosecutrix. There were also circumstances disclosed by the testimony of other witnesses sufficient to support the finding of the jury that the prosecutrix was corroborated upon the act of intercourse.
Appellant sought a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. This evidence consisted in testimony to the effect that the prosecutrix, before her relations with the appellant were established and about the same time, had submitted her person to other men. According to the motion for new trial, which was sworn to, and the affidavit of one Taylor, which was attached thereto, there would have been available to the appellant upon another trial direct and positive evidence to this important fact. According to the testimony of the prosecutrix, a woman approximately 24 years of age, she submitted to the appellant's embraces within 16 days after she met him for the first time. The testimony of the prosecutrix concerning the persuasive acts usually occurring antecedent to such an affair is meager, and that corroborating her more so.
Appellant testified, disclaiming entirely the relations imputed to him by the prosecutrix. He used witnesses testifying to circumstances tending to support his theory, but was able to present no affirmative testimony of her want of chastity. If she was unchaste, he was not guilty. Mrous v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 599, 21 S. W. 764, 37 Am. St. Rep. 834; Vantresse v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 281, 128 S. W. 383; Simmons v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. R. 625, 114 S. W. 841; Branch's Ann. Penal Code, § 2693.
Taylor was summoned as a witness and appeared at the trial, but was not used. It affirmatively appears from the motion for new trial and from the affidavit of Taylor attached thereto that at the trial he denied to both the appellant and his counsel ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Anderson v. State
...of diligence applicable to that article. Henson v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. R. 283, 168 S. W. 89 (on motion for rehearing); Gainer v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 538, 232 S. W. 830; Cottrell v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 131, 237 S. W. 928; Mireles v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 608, 204 S. W. 861; Nothaf v. Stat......
-
Henry v. State, 18865.
...discovered. See Anderson v. State, 93 Tex.Cr.R. 634, 248 S.W. 681; Gregory v. State, 105 Tex.Cr.R. 674, 290 S.W. 176; Gainer v. State, 89 Tex.Cr.R. 538, 232 S.W. 830; Howle v. State, 114 Tex.Cr.R. 612, 26 S.W.(2d) We are not in accord with the court's further reason for overruling the motio......
-
Cottrell v. State
...In the matter of diligence to procure the statement, there occurs to us no laches upon the part of the appellant. Gainer v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 538, 232 S. W. 830, and cases cited. While the statement is in the nature of impeaching testimony, it not only tends to discredit the prosecuting......
-
Wiley v. State, 24338.
...634, 248 S.W. 681; Howle v. State, 114 Tex.Cr.R. 612, 26 S.W.2d 651; Barrett v. State, 98 Tex.Cr.R. 627, 267 S.W. 511; Gainer v. State, 89 Tex.Cr.R. 538, 232 S.W. 830. Even though appellant may have brought himself within the exception where the witness from whom the claimed newly discovere......