Hollingsworth v. State
| Citation | 211 S.W. 454 |
| Decision Date | 29 January 1919 |
| Docket Number | (No. 5265.) |
| Parties | HOLLINGSWORTH v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Coryell County; J. H. Arnold, Judge.
Alfred Hollingsworth was convicted of incest, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded on rehearing.
See, also, 199 S. W. 626.
D. W. Odell, of Ft. Worth, for appellant.
E. A. Berry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of incest; his punishment being assessed at 5 years' confinement in the penitentiary.
Before court adjourned there was an order entered allowing 60 days to the defendant in which to file his bills of exception and statement of facts. Court adjourned the 24th of August, and the statement of facts and bills of exception, except two bills, were filed on November 8th. One bill bears no file mark. The Assistant Attorney General moves to strike from consideration all the bills of exception except that filed within the time, which is bill No. 1. Under the rules and the authorities the motion as to the bills of exception will have to be sustained. The decisions are quite numerous sustaining the above proposition. This, however, does not apply to the statement of facts. There would be 90 days allowed after the adjournment of the term of court in which to file the statement of facts. Redman v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. R. 374, 149 S. W. 670; Romero v. State, 72 Tex. Cr. R. 105, 160 S. W. 1193. The bills of exception, in order to be considered, must have been filed within the 60 days allowed.
Bill No. 1 reserved exceptions to the action of the court admitting certain letters, which are not set out in the bill, but referred to in the statement of facts. The judge qualifies this bill by stating these letters were held by this court on the last appeal, in an opinion written by Judge Morrow, to be admissible. It would be of no practical utility to discuss that matter.
It is further contended that the evidence is not sufficient for want of corroboration. The girl testifies to a case against appellant. We are of opinion that, taking all the circumstances as shown in this record, there is sufficient evidence tending to connect the defendant with the case testified by the prosecutrix.
As the case is presented by the record, we find no reversible error, and the judgment is ordered to be affirmed.
On Motion for Rehearing.
On a former day of the term the judgment herein was affirmed without considering the bills of exception. On motion for rehearing it is made to appear that the record omitted the order of the court extending the time in which bills of exception were authorized to be filed. The corrected record shows that the bills of exception were filed within the time permitted by the order of the court. They will be considered. The rehearing is granted, and the case considered upon its merits.
This case has been before this court on three previous occasions. The first appeal is reported in 78 Tex. Cr. R. 489, 182 S. W. 465, the second in 80 Tex. Cr. R. 299, 189 S. W. 488, and the third in 199 S. W. 626. On the first appeal the judgment was on rehearing reversed, among other things, because the state was permitted to introduce in evidence a letter written by the prosecutrix, Cassie Dunn, to appellant. The letter was written on the 24th of November, 1914, from Callahan county, and directed to appellant in Coryell county. That letter is set out in the opinion on the first appeal. It is unnecessary to repeat it. This same letter was referred to in the opinion in 199 S. W. 626 by Judge Morrow, and the ruling in the former appeal followed. The court was in error in this case in admitting that letter under former adjudications.
Another bill of exceptions was reserved to the introduction of the evidence of Cassie Dunn, prosecutrix, given before the grand jury, to be reproduced before the jury on this trial. Her statement to the grand jury was that she had had intercourse with some one whom she declined and refused to name. On her cross-examination on this trial she admitted that on the first trial (78 Tex. Cr. R. 489, 182 S. W. 465) she testified that appellant did not have intercourse with her, but that another named party did. This was contrary to her testimony then being delivered. It thereby avoided her impeachment. Appellant introduced no evidence. This testimony could not corroborate her, inasmuch as it exonerated defendant. Her testimony before the grand jury was hearsay and inadmissible.
Another bill of exceptions recites the testimony of appellant given before the grand jury. A proper predicate was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosa v. State
...calculated to injure the accused and not admissible in evidence. Cyc. vol. 12, p. 572; note 67, and cases cited; Hollingsworth v. State, 82 Tex. Cr. R. 340, 211 S. W. 454; Dunn v. State, 212 S. W. 511; Roberson v. State, 203 S. W. 355. In one of these cases it is said that, where the mere p......
-
Carlile v. State
...clearly wrong, should prevail. 11 Cyc. of Law & Proc. p. 757; English v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 507, 224 S. W. 511; Hollingsworth v. State, 85 Tex. Cr. R. 248, 211 S. W. 454; Vernon's Tex. Crim. Stat. vol. 2, p. 902, note The errors pointed out require a reversal of the judgment; and it is s......
-
Hollingsworth v. State
...Bosque County; O. L. Lockett, Judge. Alfred Hollingsworth was convicted of a crime, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded. See, also, 211 S. W. 454. D. W. Odell, of Ft. Worth, for Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. DAVIDSON, P. J. This case has been before this court on previ......
-
Wilson v. State, 22988.
...for to do so would authorize the accomplice by her own statements to corroborate herself, which can not be done. Hollingsworth v. State, 85 Tex.Cr.R. 248, 211 S.W. 454. No other conclusion can be reached from this record save and except that the testimony of the prosecutrix has not been cor......
-
The Residual Exception to the Hearsay Rule: the Complete Treatment
...441 P.2d 111, 116 (Ca. 1968) (holding grand jury testimony inadmissible under former testimony exception); Hollingsworth v. State, 211 S.W. 454, 455 (Tex. Crim. App. 1919) (stating that "[t]estimony before the grand jury was hearsay and inadmissible"); State v. Patton, 164 S.W. 223, 225 (Mo......
-
The Residual Exception to the Hearsay Rule: the Complete Treatment
...441 P.2d 111, 116 (Ca. 1968) (holding grand jury testimony inadmissible under former testimony exception); Hollingsworth v. State, 211 S.W. 454, 455 (Tex. Crim. App. 1919) (stating that "[t]estimony before the grand jury was hearsay and inadmissible"); State v. Patton, 164 S.W. 223, 225 (Mo......