Rogers v. State, 35830
| Decision Date | 29 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 35830,35830 |
| Parties | Norman ROGERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Vernon McDaniel, Wichita Falls, for appellant.
Donald E. Short, County Atty., Glynn R. Purtle and Ray Gene Smith, Asst. County Attys., Wichita Falls, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is aggravated assault by an adult upon a child; the punishment, 2 years in jail.
The complaint was sworn to by W. R. Truitt, father of the wife of the appellant and grandfather of the child Garry Hill.
The appellant was Garry's step-father, he having married Anelia who was the mother of four children born of a previous marriage.
Garry was the oldest of the children, being 7 years old at the time in question. He was to some extent mentally retarded and when called to the witness stand was excused without being interrogated.
Mr. Truitt testified that he saw Garry about 7:30 on Monday and observed that 'his eyes were black--under his eyes and his face was swollen and his lip puffed out, blackened under his upper lip.' The witness admitted that he filed the complaint before he saw Garry on said date. He was permitted to testify that his daughter, the appellant's wife, told him on Sunday that Garry's injuries were 'administered' by the appellant (her husband) on November 7th, and that she also told him that she was afraid to file charges herself.
He also testified that the appellant's wife told him that her two other children, Jimmy and Larry, received injuries by beating administered by the appellant on the same day Garry received his, and that she told him that her husband 'knocked her down on the floor and twisted her arm' and 'he hit her in the face and blackened her eye' and 'while she was on the floor and couldn't get up why he beat up on the children * * * hit them in the face and beat them up * * *.'
On cross-examination Mr. Truitt testified: 'I had my daughter's word for it', but admitted that he did not with his own eyes see anyone strike Garry Hill on November 7th.
Thereafter the appellant testified and called his wife as a witness who corroborated his testimony that he slapped Garry to punish him for having cursed. Under the appellant's testimony and that of his wife the acts of the appellant did not exceed his parental right of moderate restraint or correction of the children.
The state introduced in evidence a written statement of appellant's wife, after cross-examining her in regard thereto, in which she said her husband beat her and beat the three childern, describing in detail the injuries she said he inflicted upon each of them.
Without regard to whether her statements to others became admissible to impeach her after she was called as a witness by her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mathis, Cr. 8143
...Court of Criminal Appeals has so held on two different occasions (Brock v. State, 44 Tex.Cr.R. 335, 71 S.W. 20, 60 L.R.A. 465; Rogers v. State, 368 S.W.2d 772) and has cut back on the rule only when clear dictates of necessity so demanded (Newman v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 628, 210 S.W.2d (171......
-
Frazier v. State
...(Tex.Cr.App.1972); Payne v. State, 480 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Cherb v. State, 472 S.W.2d 273 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Rogers v. State, 368 S.W.2d 772 (Tex.Cr.App.1963); Cooper Petroleum Co. v. La Gloria Oil and Gas Co., 436 S.W.2d 889 (Tex.1969); Aetna Ins. Co. v. Klein, 160 Tex. 61, 325 S......
-
Johnson v. State
...not to testify against appellant at his trial. Compare, however, Jones v. State, 501 S.W.2d 308 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Rogers v. State, 368 S.W.2d 772 (Tex.Cr.App.1963); Thrash v. State, 170 Tex.Crim. 97, 338 S.W.2d 447 I stress that the trial judge should have sustained appellant's counsel's "......
-
Willard v. State
...State, 170 S.W. 145 (Tex.Cr.App.1914). Even with his consent, the wife is an incompetent witness against the husband. Rogers v. State, 368 S.W.2d 772 (Tex.Cr.App.1963). If the State uses the wife of the accused as a witness against him on the trial of a case in which she is not a competent ......