Topolanck v. State
| Decision Date | 01 January 1874 |
| Citation | 40 Tex. 160 |
| Parties | FRANK TOPOLANCK v. THE STATE. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
A conviction for rape should not be sustained upon the unsupported testimony of the woman injured, and who did not divulge the outrage for several weeks after it was perpetrated.
APPEAL from Fayette. Tried below before the Hon. J. B. McFarland.
Topolanck was convicted of rape on Frances Odlozelek, and his punishment fixed at fifteen years in the penitentiary.
Moore & Ledbetter, for appellant. So far as we have access to authorities, they show that the testimony of the injured party must be corroborated by other circumstances and facts in order to convict upon her testimony alone. 2 Stark. 700; 1 Russ. Cr. 689; Ros. 810; Whart. 521; 4 Bla. Com. 213.
No brief for state.
At the July term, 1873, of the district court of Fayette county, Frank Topolanck was tried and convicted of rape, and his punishment was fixed by the jury at fifteen years' confinement in the penitentiary. The indictment charges that the offense was committed on the twenty-fourth day of November, 1872.
The only witness introduced on the trial by the prosecution was the female alleged to have been violated. She proved that the defendant came to her father's house when she was alone, her father and mother being away, and committed the deed with which he is charged, on the day mentioned in the indictment, and under the circumstances stated in her testimony. She says she never told any one about what he did for several weeks, because the defendant told her that if she did he would kill her and her father, and then kill himself; that she resisted and cried until she was exhausted; that she was twenty-one years old. She further states that she had a child born about the middle of June, 1873.
It was proved in defense, by the only witness introduced for the accused, that he had been in the habit of frequenting the house of John Odlozelek, the father of this woman, both before and after the twenty-fourth of November, 1872, the time when the offense is alleged to have been committed. This witness goes on to say, that all he knew about the offense was hearsay; he had heard about it, but never heard of any complaint until the defendant was arrested about March 1, 1873.
It would seem that the defendant was convicted alone on the testimony of the female alleged to have been injured, unsupported by other evidence, and not corroborated by circumstances. She says she told no one of what the defendant had done for several weeks, leaving it to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hamey
...instances where the courts have held the evidence wholly wanting in the elements which go to make up the crime of rape. Thus in Topolanck v. State, 40 Tex. 160, the court said: "It would seem that the defendant was convicted alone on the testimony of the female alleged to have been injured,......
-
The State v. Hamey
... ... mere statement that she had never had sexual intercourse with ... any of them ... It is ... thought proper to give here some instances where the courts ... have held the evidence wholly wanting in the elements which ... go to make up the crime of rape. Thus in Topolanck v ... State, 40 Tex. 160, the court said: "It would seem ... that the defendant was convicted alone on the testimony of ... the female alleged to have been injured, unsupported by other ... evidence, and not corroborated by circumstances. She says she ... told no one of what the defendant ... ...
-
State v. Patrick
... ... it may be considered as affecting its weight; and, when ... complaint is not made promptly, the delay calls for ... explanation before the court will admit it." ... As to ... the promptness necessary in such cases, see, also, Eyler ... v. State, supra ; Topolanck v. State , ... 40 Tex. 160. In the latter case where complaint was not made ... for several weeks and the testimony of the woman was not ... supported, it was ruled that a conviction should not be ... allowed to stand, Reeves, J., saying: "It would seem ... that the defendant was convicted ... ...
-
Conger v. State
...testimony in this character of cases is clearly admissible. Peffering v. State, 40 Tex. 486; Rogers v. State, 1 Tex. App. 188; Topolanck v. State, 40 Tex. 160; Ruston v. State, 15 Tex. App. 324; Johnson v. State, 21 Tex. App. 368, 17 S. W. 252; Rhea v. State, 30 Tex. App. 483, 17 S. W. 931;......