Gent v. State

• Decision Date: 08 December 1909
• Citation: 123 S.W. 594
• Parties: GENT v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

123 S.W. 594

GENT v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

December 8, 1909.

Appeal from District Court, Kaufman County; F. L. Hawkins, Judge.

H. C. Gent was convicted of rape, and appeals. Affirmed.

Ross Huffmaster and George G. Shaw, for appellant. F. J. McCord, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

RAMSEY, J.

The appellant, H. C. Gent, was prosecuted in the district court of Kaufman county on a charge of rape on the person of one Nona Mason, and a conviction had wherein imprisonment in the penitentiary for a period of five years was assessed against him.

1. Appellant presents a number of grounds on which a reversal is sought. The evidence showed practically beyond dispute that the prosecutrix, Nona Mason, was at the time of the alleged intercourse under the age of 15 years. This intercourse was testified to by her positively, and that same was by her consent and at a time and place fixed by her. There was other evidence sufficiently corroborating this proof. On the trial proof was made by the constable of the Kaufman precinct that, after the original prosecution was instituted, he had sought to find appellant and could not do so. This was objected to because it was not shown that the officer had any process for the defendant and his search for him was without authority of law. It is permissible to prove by any one who knows the fact, and who has any occasion to inquire, that appellant had fled from the scene of the offense and from his home. Proof was also made by the sheriff of Bosque county that he went to Guadalupe county upon receipt of information that appellant was wanted in Kaufman county, and found appellant there, and that he was going by the name of H. B. Clay, and denied ever having lived in Kaufman county. The record shows and the judge certifies that at this time he was not under arrest, and, in view of all the facts, this testimony was clearly admissible as showing flight, change of name, and a denial that he had ever lived in Kaufman county where the crime was committed. The testimony was not offered as a confession, nor did the facts show an arrest at the time.

2. On the trial the state was permitted to introduce, to show flight, the complaint filed against appellant, the capias, and the bail bond. These papers were admitted in evidence at the time by the court, but later were withdrawn by the state, of its own volition, and the jury were instructed that same had been withdrawn and not to consider them. For the purpose of...