Rodes v. State

Decision Date17 November 1897
Citation42 S.W. 990
PartiesRODES v. STATE.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Appeal from Brazos county court; W. H. Harmanson, Judge.

Nathaniel Rodes was convicted of fornication, and appeals. Affirmed.

Hudson & Nall, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.

DAVIDSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of fornication, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $50, and prosecutes this appeal.

He offered to prove by John Rodes "that at the time alleged in the information he, the said John Rodes, had carnal intercourse with the witness Marzella Pierce, the paramour of the defendant, and that other men visited her during this time; the state having previously proved by Bettie Pierce, the mother of the paramour, Marzella Pierce, that she, the said Marzella Pierce, was in a pregnant condition, and that she, the said Marzella Pierce, had told her that the defendant was the father of her unborn child, and the author of her condition." This was objected to by the state because it was not relevant or material, and, further, it would expose the witness to a criminal prosecution; the said witness not being a witness in behalf of the state, but for the defendant, and not asking any protection of the court. This witness would have testified that he, "about the date of the alleged offense, did have carnal intercourse with the said Marzella Pierce, and that other negro men visited her." This testimony was excluded, and exception reserved by appellant. The object or purpose of this testimony is not stated in the bill, and we are left to infer such object or purpose. A bill, under these circumstances, has often been held, in this state, to be not sufficient, the purpose of the testimony not being obvious. But if the testimony had been admitted, its effect would have been to show that the said Marzella Pierce was a woman of loose virtue, and tend to corroborate the state's case. This is not like a case of rape, where such testimony would be admissible as tending to show consent; nor is it like a case of seduction, where such testimony would be admissible as tending to show a want of chastity on the part of the alleged seduced female. See Davis v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 38 S. W. 174. If this testimony was offered to prove the fact that the prosecutrix was pregnant by some other person than the appellant, then we fail to see how this would have tended to show that appellant did not commit fornication with her. It would simply have afforded an opportunity, if true,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Clay v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 26 d2 Junho d2 1906
  • Edmondson v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 12 d3 Março d3 1930
    ...606, 21 S. W. 765; Loakman v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 562, 25 S. W. 20; Bailey v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 580, 40 S. W. 281; Rodes v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 328, 42 S. W. 990; Clay v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 655, 56 S. W. 629. It seems plain that the purpose and object of this rejected testimony w......
  • Williams v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 17 d3 Novembro d3 1926
    ...light upon the character for chastity of the injured female at the time of the occurrence. This case is approved in Rodes v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 328, 42 S. W. 990, and the principle adhered to in Creighton v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 101, 51 S. W. 910, and is expressly upheld in Polk v. Stat......
  • Guinn v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 20 d3 Novembro d3 1901
    ...involved in this character of testimony, see Holland v. State, 14 Tex. App. 182; Perigo v. State, 25 Tex. App. 533, 8 S. W. 660; Rodes v. State, 42 S. W. 990; Boatwright v. State, 60 S. W. 760, 1 Tex. Ct. Rep. In bill of exceptions No. 16 appellant complains the court permitted the state to......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT