Hunter v. State
| Decision Date | 16 June 1897 |
| Citation | 41 S.W. 602 |
| Parties | HUNTER v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Wilson county court; L. B. Camp, Special Judge.
E. R. Hunter was convicted of willfully and designedly attempting to produce an abortion on Florence Johnson. From an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
L. S. Lanham and W. R. Wiseman, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of willfully and designedly attempting to produce an abortion on one Florence Johnson, then and there a pregnant woman, by administering to her, with her consent, a certain drug and medicine, well calculated to produce an abortion upon her.
On the trial, appellant did not reserve any exceptions to the rulings of the court, and files no assignments of error in this court. The first ground of the motion for a new trial in the court below avers that the court erred in permitting the county attorney to compel the defendant, while on the witness stand, to testify to the fact that he had had carnal intercourse with the prosecuting witness, Florence Johnson. If appellant conceived the idea that this ruling of the court was error, he should have reserved his bill of exceptions, and, not having done so, this court will not revise the ruling of the court.
It is also contended that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the law and the evidence, and that the testimony fails to show that ergot, the medicine administered, was calculated to produce an abortion. There were three doctors who testified in regard to this matter. Dr. Brewton testified that "ergot will under certain conditions produce an abortion, but it is not a drug that the physicians would use to produce an abortion in cases where it is necessary to produce that result." Dr. Mason testified that Dr. Blake testified that This is the testimony of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fondren v. State
...Tex. App. 237; Willingham v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 99, 25 S. W. 424; Miller v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 575, 40 S. W. 313; Hunter v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 61, 41 S. W. 602. It is needless to cite other cases or We think there was no evidence properly raising any issue that the appellant was an......
-
Gray v. State
...court that the woman upon whom an abortion is committed is not an accomplice that we regard the question as settled. Hunter v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 61, 41 S. W. 602; Miller v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 575, 40 S. W. 313; Willingham v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 99, 25 S. W. 424; Watson v. State, 9 ......
-
Jones v. State
...have been an accomplice therein. Watson v. State, 9 Tex. App. 238; Willingham v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 98, 25 S. W. 424; Hunter v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 61, 41 S. W. 602, and other The first special charge requested by appellant, omitting the heading and signature thereto, was: "I charge yo......
-
Smartt v. State
...same propositions are supported in Cyc. L. & Proc. pp. 175, 191, citing the same authorities, and in addition thereto Hunter v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 61, 41 S. W. 602, and Willingham v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 98, 25 S. W. 424. In Ency. Ev. vol. 1, p. 61, it is said: "In the absence of a stat......