Knight v. State
Decision Date | 17 January 1912 |
Citation | 144 S.W. 967 |
Parties | KNIGHT v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, San Augustine County; W. B. Powell, Judge.
John Knight was convicted of seduction, and appeals. Affirmed.
King & King and Wm. McDonald, for appellant. D. M. Short & Sons and C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
In this case appellant was prosecuted, charged with seduction, was convicted, and his punishment assessed at three years confinement in the penitentiary.
The record discloses that the alleged seduced female and appellant are cousins, and prior to this occurrence both were of good standing. The prosecuting witness, Miss Annie Slaughter, testified that she was 21 years old, and that defendant was 23 years of age; that they were third cousins. That she had known defendant about six years; that appellant first began to come to see her or court her in the fall of the first year she met him. She was living with her parents in the Polk neighborhood at that time, and he continued to come to see her for three and a half years. That she was pregnant, and John Knight was the cause of the pregnancy; that she had never had intercourse with any one else except John Knight. That she had testified at the examining trial of defendant, and shortly thereafter, while at home, she was told by her mother to go to the telephone. That she had a talk with John Knight over the telephone. That she recognized his voice, and that he asked her if she would come to the residence of Mr. Crockett, as he wanted to have a conversation with her. That she asked her mother, and agreed to meet him at the residence of Mr. Crockett. That her aunt, Mrs. Mattie Goldsberry, went with her. That Mr. Crockett met them at the door, and when they went in defendant was there. That defendant and Mr. Crockett refused to talk in the presence of her aunt, and wanted her aunt to retire. This her aunt refused to do, and she had no conversation with the defendant at this time. That during the years 1907, 1908, and 1909, she had corresponded with defendant and indentified a number of letters which were introduced in evidence. That she first became engaged to marry appellant about Christmas in 1907, and that the engagement continued until in April, 1909. That the engagement was renewed in May, 1910. That she was at the residence of Mr. Jim Buley in December, 1907, when she and defendant first became engaged to be married, and that defendant had been coming to see her for about a year and a half at that time, and continued his visits and correspondence until in January, 1909, when the first act of intercourse with defendant occurred. That she had never had intercourse with any one else. That in the fall of 1908, when defendant came back from school, he said he was going into business the next year, and would be ready for her. That was about a month before the first act of intercourse. That the first time he ever suggested having sexual intercourse with her was at Rebecca switch in 1908. He did not come right out and say what he wanted, but she knew by his actions and his ways, and she told him she only had her character. That he knew her father was not a wealthy man, and that she had to shield her character, and he said not to be uneasy about her character, he would never mar it, and that as they were going to get married what difference did it make, but she refused at that time; but that in January, 1909, while he was visiting her at her father's home and while she was sitting in his lap, he had carnal intercourse with her the first time. She testified to other acts of intercourse subsequent to this time in 1909, one in about a week subsequent to this time, and one in April. That in April, 1909, a disagreement came up. That she had intercourse with him that day, when she told him that they should either marry or such proceedings should stop. That was the afternoon he asked her to let him see the ring, and she gave it to him. This was the ring she termed the engagement ring. She says she did not ask him what he wanted with it, and he kept it, and she supposed he considered the engagement broken off after he got the ring as he did not come to see her any more until in May, 1910. She says:
On cross-examination she stated that if she had testified that the first time they became engaged was in December, 1907, that she meant 1906, as that was the time it was, and it was renewed in Mr. Buley's house. That they had become engaged at her uncle's home in December, 1906, when he told her how much he loved her, and asked her if she would wait for him, and she had told him that she would. That defendant had got mad in the summer, but the engagement was not broken, and when he came to see her Christmas it was renewed. She was asked in regard to her testimony at the examining trial, and defendant introduced a part of her testimony, it being as follows:
1. The defendant did not testify in the case. The first bill of exceptions relates to the admissibility of the testimony of the witness Barto McClary, who testified that in the spring of 1907 he delivered a package to the prosecuting witness, which was about an inch square and resembled a box in which rings are ordinarily kept, to which testimony defendant objected. The state had proved that appellant had bought a ring at the store at which this witness was working about the time, and the prosecuting witness, Miss Slaughter, testified that this witness brought her the ring, which was the engagement ring, in May, 1907, and she kept it until in April, 1909, when defendant had in person requested its return, and took it. Under all these circumstances we think this testimony admissible.
2. In the second bill of exceptions it is stated that Mrs. Kate Slaughter, mother of prosecutrix, had testified that on Thursday, after the examining trial of appellant on this charge, some one, and she testified it was appellant, called her up and asked to speak to the prosecuting witness, to which appellant objected, stating various reasons. This witness testified that she recognized appellant's voice, and had often talked with him over the telephone. This was followed up by the testimony of the prosecuting witness that her mother instructed her to go to the telephone, and when she went to the telephone she reco...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Dingman
... ... reversal of a judgment of conviction where the matter as to ... which the hearsay evidence was admitted was established by ... other evidence which was competent. (17 Corpus Juris, sec ... 3675, p. 332, note 59.) ... In the ... case of Knight v. State , 64 Tex. Crim. 541, 144 S.W ... 967, the principle of law above referred to is well stated, ... where it is held: "In a prosecution for seduction where ... the pregnancy of prosecutrix was uncontroverted, the ... admission of evidence of her hearsay statements to that ... effect was ... ...
-
Mireles v. State, 693-94
...it conforms to the State's charging instrument or not. E.g., Haynes v. State, 56 S.W. 923 (Tex.Crim.App.1900); Knight v. State, 64 Tex.Crim.R. 541, 144 S.W. 967, 977-78 (1912); Grantom v. State, 415 S.W.2d 664, 665 (Tex.Crim.App.1967); Brown v. State, 475 S.W.2d 938, 955-56 (Tex.Crim.App.19......
-
Sorrell v. State
...Tex. Cr. R. 225, 120 S. W. 421; Probest v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 608, 133 S. W. 263; Tarleton v. State, 62 S. W. 748; Knight v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. R. 541, 144 S. W. 967; Bailey v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. R. 1, 144 S. W. 996. See, also, Jordan v. State, 10 Tex. 479; Sharp v. State, 6 Tex. App. 65......
-
Bailey v. State
...term." This has been adhered to in all cases since the rendition of that opinion, and was so fully discussed by us in the case of Knight v. State, 144 S. W. 967 recently decided, we do not deem it necessary to further mention the matter, but refer to that case for citation of 5. The only ot......