Medis v. State
| Decision Date | 09 February 1889 |
| Citation | 11 S.W. 112 |
| Parties | MEDIS <I>et al.</I> <I>v.</I> STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from criminal district court, Galveston county; G. COOK, Judge.
Charles Medis and Ed Hill were jointly convicted of sodomy, and appeal.
McLemore & Campbell and S. T. Fontaine, for appellants. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.
Appellants were jointly indicted, tried and convicted of sodomy, the verdict of the jury being: "We, the jury, find Chas Medis and Ed Hill guilty, as charged, of sodomy, and assess the punishment at ten years' confinement in the penitentiary." Appellants contend that this is not a good and legal verdict. This proposition is now well settled in favor of appellants. Flynn v. State, 8 Tex. App. 398; Matlock's Case, 25 Tex. App. 716, 9 S.W. Rep. 45; Cunningham's Case, 26 Tex. App 83, 9 S. W. Rep. 62; Calico v. State, 4 Ark. 430; Straughan v. State, 16 Ark. 37. Appellants were charged with committing the act upon one Milton Werner. On the trial Werner was introduced as a witness for the state, and his testimony was relied on for a conviction. The court failed to give instructions to the jury relating to the necessity of corroborating said witness, and the defendant contends that Werner consented, and was therefore an accomplice. On this subject Mr. Bishop says: 2 Bish. Crim. Proc. § 1018. Werner was evidently consenting; but if the evidence should leave this in doubt, it would then become a question for the jury, and not the court, to determine, under proper instructions, whether the person was or was not consenting; and the jury should in such case be instructed that if they found that he was consenting, then they must find that he was corroborated. Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meadowcroft v. People
...8 Tex. App. 398;State v. Gay, 10 Mo. 440;Streughan v. State, 16 Ark. 37;Cunningham v. State, 26 Tex. App. 83,9 S. W. 62;Medis v. State, 27 Tex. App. 194,11 S. W. 112;Hays v. State, 30 Tex. App. 472,17 S. W. 1063;Com. v. Harris, 7 Grat. 600;Caldwell v. Com., 7 Dana, 229;Curd v. Com., 14 B. M......
-
State v. Gurnee
...has doubtless given rise to the rule announced in the cases holding that there must be corroboration. Medis & Hill v. State, 27 Tex. App. 194, 11 S. W. 112, 11 Am. St. Rep. 192; People v. Desehessere, 69 App. Div. 217, 74 N. Y. S. 761; Commonwealth v. Snow, 111 Mass. 411. See, also, note to......
-
Slusser v. State
...so consenting and acting is an accomplice under the law, and his testimony must therefore be corroborated. See Medis v. State, 27 Tex.App. 194, 11 S.W. 112, 11 Am.St.Rep. 192. But the charge clearly reveals that the court was of the opinion that an exception to such rule exists in the case ......
-
Gregoire v. State
...of his age, could only be convicted of juvenile delinquency would not preclude a finding that he was an accomplice. In Medis v. State, 27 Tex.App. 194, 11 S.W. 112, the defendants were convicted of a crime against nature on the testimony of one prosecuting witness. The Court held that the q......
-
The unbearable "lite"ness of history: American sodomy laws from Bowers to Lawrence and the ramifications of announcing a new past.
...815 (Neb. 1899); Hutchinson v. State, 24 Tenn. 142 (1844)). (127.) Id. (128.) Id. at 15-16. (129.) See id. (discussing Medis v. State, 11 S.W. 112 (Tex. Ct. App. (130.) See id. (discussing People v. Hickey, 41 P. 1027 (Cal. 1895)). (131.) See id. at 18 (discussing Gage, 116 N.W. at 596). (1......