Powell v. State

• Decision Date: 16 February 1898
• Citation: 44 S.W. 504
• Parties: POWELL v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

44 S.W. 504

POWELL v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

February 16, 1898.

Appeal from Hood county court; H. T. Berry, Judge.

J. R. Powell was convicted of adultery, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Mann Trice, for the State.

DAVIDSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of adultery, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $100; hence this appeal.

The state introduced a letter purporting to have been written by appellant to Minnie Watson, the party with whom it is alleged the adulterous intercourse took place. The defendant objected to the introduction of said letter on the ground that it was not properly proved, and because wholly immaterial to any issue in this case. We think the letter was properly proved up as a letter written by appellant. Minnie Watson testified as to receiving said letter, and also that she was acquainted with the signature of appellant, and that same was in his handwriting. The letter was also identified by the witness W. A. Floyd, as being in the handwriting of the defendant. We think the letter in question was pertinent and relevant proof. It was evidently written to Minnie Watson for the purpose of preventing her from attributing the child to him (appellant). He suggested that, if they laid the child on him, that he would take it from her. This was both a tacit admission that the child might be his, and an appeal to her motherly instinct, to prevent her from taking steps against him in regard to it.

Appellant also assigns as error the refusal of the court to give the special instructions asked by him on accomplice testimony. If the court had not given a charge on accomplice testimony, there might be something in this contention; that is, the court would have been required to give the first portion of said charge, but would not have been authorized to have instructed the jury, as requested, to acquit appellant on the ground that the testimony of the accomplice had not been corroborated. The court's charge on accomplice testimony was sufficient.

There is nothing in the bill of exceptions which raises an objection to the testimony of Minnie Watson. It was certainly material to show by her the carnal intercourse between appellant and herself, and it was competent to show any suggestion or inducement held out to her by appellant in order to persuade her to have such intercourse.

Appellant also insists that there is no testimony in this case corroborating the accomplice, Minnie Watson. We cannot agree to this proposition. We...