Ulmer v. State
| Decision Date | 16 March 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 10598.) |
| Citation | 292 S.W. 245 |
| Parties | ULMER v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Jones County; Bruce W. Bryant, Judge.
W. P. Ulmer was convicted of rape, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
T. A. Bledsoe, of Abilene, C. P. Chastain, of Hamlin, and Lon A. Brooks, of Anson, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State's Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State's Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
The appellant was convicted of rape, and his punishment assessed at 15 years in the penitentiary.
The subject of the alleged rape was Adell Ulmer, daughter of the appellant, a girl under the age of 15 years. The alleged rape occurred in the home of the appellant during the absence of the stepmother of the prosecutrix.
Bills of exception Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 present no error.
Bill of exception No. 8 complains at the action of the trial court in permitting the witness Marie Ulmer, sister of the prosecutrix, to testify in behalf of the state on direct examination as follows:
Appellant objected to that part of the witness' testimony to the effect that her father had been in the penitentiary, for the reason that the foregoing answer was not in response to the question propounded by the district attorney and could only have been made by the witness for the purpose of getting before the jury illegal and incompetent testimony, which testimony was highly prejudicial and injurious to the rights of the appellant, and that by this means the prosecution was getting before the jury an extraneous offense for which the appellant had theretofore been convicted and served a sentence in the penitentiary.
Appellant further says, as a ground of objection, that, although the court sustained his objection to that part of the testimony hereinbefore set out and instructed the jury not to consider the same, yet said answer could only have a very harmful and damaging effect upon appellant.
This bill of exception will be considered in connection with bill of exception No. 9, which complains of the action of the trial court in permitting Marie Ulmer, while on the witness stand testifying in behalf of the state, to testify as follows: "Question: Were you married at that time?" Like a flash the witness answered: "No, sir; it was my father's baby."
The appellant objected to both the question and answer, on the ground that same was for the purpose of getting before the jury illegal and incompetent testimony — testimony which was highly prejudicial, harmful, and injurious to the appellant — and that it was introduced for the purpose of inflaming the minds of the jury.
The facts disclose that,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Michaelwicz v. State
...had orchestrated the outburst. Stahl is to be distinguished on its facts and the law. Appellant also cites Ulmer v. State, 106 Tex.Crim. 349, 292 S.W. 245, 246 (1927). There in a rape case, a daughter of the defendant and a sister to the complaining witness testified for the State. The reco......
-
Gardner v. State
...made in the instant cause was both incurable and harmful.In holding the harm was not cured the panel relied upon Ulmer v. State, 106 Tex.Cr.R. 349, 292 S.W. 245 (1927), and Salinas v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 358, 175 S.W.2d 253 (1943). In Ulmer the defendant was on trial for the rape of his da......
-
Francis v. State
...of this assertion, Francis cites to an eighty-five-year-old opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ulmer v. State, 106 Tex.Crim. 349, 292 S.W. 245, 245 (Tex.Crim.App.1927). In Ulmer, the defendant was charged with raping his daughter. At trial another of the defendant's daughters w......
-
State v. Schlittenhardt, Cr. N
...from the state's witness, a public official, and the prosecution is entirely responsible for its presence in the record. Ulmer v. State, 106 Tex.Cr.R. 349, 292 S.W. 245; People v. Robinson, 273 N.Y. 438, 8 N.E.2d It is true that the trial court instructed the jury to disregard the prejudici......