Harris v. State

CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals
Writing for the CourtPrendergast
CitationHarris v. State, 144 S.W. 232, 64 Tex. Cr. R. 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 1912)
Decision Date17 January 1912
PartiesHARRIS v. STATE.

Appeal from District Court, Wise County; J. W. Patterson, Judge.

Carl Harris was convicted of incest, and appeals. Affirmed.

R. E. and Robt. Carswell, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PRENDERGAST, J.

On December 3, 1910, appellant was indicted for incest with his sister, Janie Harris, alleged to have occurred on or about January 15, 1910. He was tried January 12, 1911, convicted, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.

The proof shows that W. C. Harris, 67 years old, for several years prior to the commission of this offense lived on a farm in Wise county with his unmarried brother, 53 years old, and his four children — three sons, Ira, age 23; Lucien, age 21; Carl, the appellant, age 19, and his daughter, Janie, afterwards Mrs. Janie Brown, 17 years of age. These were the ages at the time of the trial. The house they lived in had six rooms, two, his kitchen and dining room, in an ell on the ground floor, and four other rooms, two on the ground floor and two on a second story above them. During the years of 1909 and 1910, till in September, the father and his brother slept together in one of the ground floor rooms in which the stairway was situated. Janie slept in the other ground floor room alone. Said three sons slept in the two rooms of the second story. Sometimes two of the brothers slept in one room and one in the other. They changed about. The evidence shows, however, that Carl occasionally, if not frequently, slept in one of the rooms alone, the other two brothers sleeping in the other room together. In order for either of the brothers, at night, after all had retired, to have had access to Janie's room, it would be necessary to come down the stairway in the father's and his brother's room, through it into her room.

In September, 1910, the father and his brother and his three sons became aware of the fact that Janie was pregnant. The father during this month is shown to have discussed this fact with Carl, but with neither of his other sons, or his brother. During January and February, 1910, Ira was shown to have worked at a gin in Decatur some six miles distant from his home as many as two days or more each week, staying at his father's with the family during these months while he was not thus at work in Decatur. Lucien, the other son, was shown to have gone to Ft. Worth to school in June, 1910, and remained there thereafter either at school or working as a stenographer. He did not testify upon the trial. It does not appear whether he was present attending the court at the time of the trial or not.

The father testified on the trial that he had never at any time had sexual intercourse with his daughter, Janie. While Ira testified on the trial to many facts, when asked if he had ever had sexual intercourse with Janie, refused to testify because it might incriminate him. The uncle of the girl, the brother of her father, testified that he at no time had ever had sexual intercourse with Janie. Carl, the appellant, did not testify at all on the trial.

Janie was shown to have attended school in 1909, and on one or two occasions accompanied some young men from her home during that year to some party or other gathering in the neighborhood. The evidence in no way tends to show, and it seems was not contended, that she at any time had had intercourse with any of these persons with whom she had occasionally gone, except Joe Brown. Joe Brown was a boy living a few miles from the Harris family. He also attended the same school with Janie in 1909; they were then sweethearts, and in the fall of 1909 became engaged to be married. He occasionally went with her to some gathering and was with her occasionally during 1909 and in 1910. He was devotedly in love with her, and she, apparently with him. In September, 1910, Janie's pregnancy became known. At this time Ira was staying in Decatur at work; was not at home. Lucien was in Ft. Worth and had been continuously for months. Some time during September — on Wednesday before they left the following Sunday night to get married — Janie told Joe Brown, her sweetheart and to whom she was engaged, that she was pregnant and then told him who was the father of the unborn child. Joe Brown, at this time, did not know and thought her condition was unknown to others. Because of his devoted love for her and in order to protect her, he agreed to take her away from there and marry her. It was arranged between the father, the girl, Carl, and Joe Brown that on the night of September 25, 1910, Carl would quietly and secretly take her from home in his buggy, pick up Joe Brown a mile or two therefrom on the road to Decatur, a railroad point, and that Joe Brown and she would take the night train to some point outside of the state and marry. Joe Brown had but $1.50 in money. In June, 1910, the father had borrowed from Carl $50 in money to send Lucien to school in Ft. Worth. Whether he used the money for that purpose is not made clear. However, on September 24, 1910, the father repaid Carl the $50 Carl had loaned him, and, upon the suggestion of the father, it was agreed between Carl and him that Carl would give to Janie this money to go away on and marry Joe Brown, which Carl did. The fact that it was Carl's money, and that he gave it to his sister for the purpose stated, is not disputed. She had no other money except this. When Carl took his sister and Joe Brown to the train at night, as above stated, he drove directly to the depot for them to take the train — stopped a little distance from the train. Before they got to Decatur on this occasion, doubtless on that day, Carl had procured two railroad tickets, one to Wichita Falls and the other to Vernon. The purpose of this was that if any one found out Joe and Janie had left on that train they would find that one went to one place and the other to the other. When they got to the depot the train was just then pulling in and they hastened to and got upon the train. Both went to Vernon. Before reaching there, they concluded that they would go to Frederick, Okl., which they did, and they were married there the next day, September 26, 1910. Just a few days after that, Joe Brown's brother went to Frederick, found Joe and his wife, and had a conference with him. Joe then saw his wife. They all three then returned to Decatur in Wise county. The night of September 26, 1910, when they took the train and left Decatur, was Sunday night. They started back to Decatur from Frederick, Okl., on Friday night of the same week they were married and reached Decatur early Monday morning and then they all went first to the jail and then to the court-house and saw the county attorney of Wise county, Mr. Ratliff. Joe's wife, his brother, mother, and father, and brother-in-law, and Mr. Branch, the sheriff, were all in the room of Mr. Ratliff, the county attorney, on that Monday morning. Joe Brown testified that he had never had sexual intercourse with Janie prior to his marriage to her. After leaving Decatur on this occasion, Joe Brown and his wife Janie went from there to Ft. Worth and remained there living with her as his wife until about a week before Christmas, 1910, when they separated, she going back to her father's and he to his. While they were living together on November 10, 1910, a child was born to Janie.

On Saturday, September 24, 1910, Janie's father and his brother went to Ft. Worth. Ira was in Decatur and did not then know that Carl was to take Janie and Joe Brown to Decatur to take the train that night, and he did not at the time they left know that they were going, or that they were then going to marry. From all the evidence on this point, we take it that the father and his brother were making it a point not to know where Janie and Joe Brown were to go to be married, though they knew that Carl was to take Janie and Joe to the train that night, furnish his sister this money and the tickets, but that Ira, the other brother, did not know of these details at the time.

Janie Harris Brown, appellant's sister, testified on the trial. She told who her father and brothers were, the situation of their house, the beds, the rooms, and, among other things, said: "I believe he (Carl) slept on the east side; brother Ira slept on the west side, and when Lucien was at home he slept with Ira. Most of the time Ira and Lucien slept on the west side and Carl on the east side. The east side was just over my room but there was no opening between them." She further testified: "In June (1910) I left Wise county and went to my sister in Donley county. I believe it was the 17th of June that I left, and returned along about the 1st of August." In speaking of returning to Decatur, the week she was married in Oklahoma, she said: "I came back to Decatur; I came back along about the last of September. I saw Mr. Ratliff, the county attorney, at that time at Decatur. Being now asked if I talked to him, I refuse to answer anything that might criminate myself." She further testified that she told her sweet-heart, Joe Brown, that she was pregnant on the Wednesday before her brother took her and him to the train on the following Sunday night, and that her brother Carl gave her the $50 at their home before he took her that night; that there was no one present when he gave her the money and she did not remember just what was said. "I could not say positively, but I don't believe my brother (Carl) told me what to do with the $50 when he gave it to me. I asked him for the $50. I don't remember positively whether I told him what I wanted it for or not." She was then asked whether the appellant had sexual intercourse with her about the last of January or first of February 1910, and she refused to answer because she might criminate herself. She was also then asked if she had a conversation with Mr. Ratliff (county...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
14 cases
  • People v. Hein
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • December 16, 1924
    ...A. 553, 16 A. L. R. 1141;State v. Wooley, 215 Mo. 620, 115 S. W. 417;Lott v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 162, 131 S. W. 553;Harris v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. R. 594, 144 S. W. 232;Harkey v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 212, 234 S. W. 221, 17 A. L. R. 1276;State v. Brinkley, 55 Or. 134, 104 P. 893,105 P. 708;......
  • Kincaid v. State, 18275.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 10, 1936
    ...be corroborated by the testimony of an accomplice. See, also, Schoenfeldt v. State, 30 Tex.App. 695, 18 S.W. 640. In Harris v. State, 64 Tex.Cr.R. 594, 144 S.W. 232, 239, we said: "It is true that this court has held, and it is well established, that a confession alone in and of itself, is ......
  • Dodd v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • February 13, 1918
    ...it was taken. McDonald v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 210, 116 S. W. 47; Goode v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 220, 123 S. W. 597; Harris v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. R. 594, 144 S. W. 232. In their brief counsel makes some complaint of arguments which are referred to in the motion for new trial, but not verif......
  • Fisher v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 13, 1917
    ...are things that have often been held essential in a bill of exceptions. Branch's Ann. P. C. p. 131, §§ 207 to 214; Harris v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. R. 594, 144 S. W. 232; Vernon's C. C. P. art. 743, p. 522, and cases. We have nevertheless examined the record, and it is disclosed thereby that th......
  • Get Started for Free