Tomlin v. State
| Decision Date | 20 June 1888 |
| Citation | 8 S.W. 931 |
| Parties | TOMLIN v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Ellis county; A. RAINEY, Judge.
Indictment against Henry Tomlin for rape. Defendant was found guilty below, and appeals.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.
Appellant, on March 28, 1888, was tried and convicted for rape; the punishment being assessed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for life. On April 5, 1888, his motion for new trial was overruled by the court, and on that day sentence was passed on him. On April 18, 1888, appellant's bills of exception were filed, and by these are the only questions presented for revision, except as to the sufficiency of the evidence and the correctness of the charge of the court.
The bills of exception being filed in term, it is contended by counsel for appellant that they may have been presented to the judge within the 10 days, and that, if this was the case, appellant complied with the law. This position is correct, the presumption being that the trial judge would not approve the bills unless presented within the 10 days.
The motion to quash the special venire is not well taken.
There are facts in this record strongly tending to show rape. There are also facts tending to show that, if appellant had carnal knowledge of the prosecutrix, it was with her consent. This being the state of case, it is of the first importance to the rights of appellant that no facts be admitted in evidence except such as are competent, especially if they were calculated to work injury to him.
The state proved by one Cordele that, five years before the trial, appellant told witness that he, appellant, had a medicine which, if administered to a woman, would make her yield to his desires. To the introduction of this matter the defendant objected, on the ground that it was irrelevant and illegal. The objection was overruled, and defendant excepted, reserving his bill. The indictment alleges that the carnal knowledge was effected by force, and the state relies alone upon proof of force for conviction. There is no evidence tending, remotely or otherwise, to show that, five years ago, the defendant knew or had ever heard of the prosecutrix. It is impossible to perceive the bearing this matter could legally have upon this case or any issue involved in the trial. That a party on trial for horse-theft had said that he was a thief, and was thoroughly equipped for the theft business, is as competent as the fact that appellan...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Streight v. State
...unless clearly admissible will be excluded. Woodward v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 204, 58 S. W. 135; 6 Enc. Evidence, p. 606; Tomlin v. State, 25 Tex. App. 685, 8 S. W. 931. "(3) Where testimony of threats, quarrels, or former troubles between the deceased and defendant at all remote in time is......
-
Monchego v. People
...v. Lawrence, 74 Ohio St. 38, 77 N.E. 266, 6 Ann.Cas. 888), and in the other the statement was made five years Before (Tomlin v. State, 25 Tex.App. 676, 8 S.W. 931). both these cases the statements were held to be inadmissible. But under the same subject in C.J. at page 1059, n. 42, a Texas ......
-
Haggart v. State
...if he made the remark, used no language to individuate her or language that would indicate he had reference to her. Tomlin v. State, 25 Tex. App. 676, 8 S. W. 931; Yancey v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. R. 366, 76 S. W. 571. If Helen had been a girl of that age, or appellant had used language that wo......
- Crockett v. State