Wilson v. State
| Decision Date | 16 March 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 53041,53041 |
| Citation | 548 S.W.2d 51 |
| Parties | Larry Lee WILSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
DAVIS, Commissioner.
Appeal is taken from a conviction for aggravated rape. The jury assessed punishment at thirty-five years.
The prosecutrix testified that appellant raped her after threatening her with a gun on May 6, 1975. Appellant testified in his own behalf that the prosecutrix consented to the sexual intercourse.
Appellant contends in four grounds of error that the trial court improperly limited appellant's introduction of evidence concerning the prosecutrix's prior sexual behavior. The trial court, after conducting a hearing out of the presence of the jury pursuant to V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Sec. 21.13, 1 refused to allow appellant to cross-examine the prosecutrix regarding an abortion she had two or three years prior to the rape. The court also excluded cross-examination of the prosecutrix in regard to her being treated for venereal disease and that she had engaged in sexual intercourse on two or three prior occasions. 2 The record further reflects that the court refused to allow appellant to introduce to the jury a medical report prepared by the examining physician containing references to the same information and that the prosecutrix was taking oral contraceptives on the date of the offense.
The matters which appellant attempted to introduce were not germane to the issue of the victim's acquiescence, or any other fact at issue in the case as required by Sec. 21.13, supra. See Young v. State, 547 S.W.2d 23 (Tex.Cr.App.1977), and cases there cited. We hold that the trial court did not err in excluding the evidence.
Appellant's grounds of error are overruled.
The judgment is affirmed.
Opinion approved by the Court.
1 The record reflects that appellant's trial was conducted after the effective date of Sec. 21.13, supra. Sec. 21.13, supra, provides as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. State
...prosecutrix's consent to the relationship with appellant, citing Young v. State, 547 S.W.2d 23, 25 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Wilson v. State, 548 S.W.2d 51, 52 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). Further, the Court of Appeals found the evidence was properly excluded when offered for the purpose of impeaching the p......
-
Lawson v. State
...--- So.2d ---- (Ms. August 21, 1979), and cases cited therein; Turley v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 356 So.2d 1238 (1978); Wilson v. State, Tex.Crim., 548 S.W.2d 51 (1977). II Appellant contends that certain questions and statements made by the district attorney, taken either individually or colle......
-
Williams v. State
...complainant had a baby and that she bragged about giving a man a venereal disease was not probative of consent. See Wilson v. State, 548 S.W.2d 51 (Tex.Crim.App.1977); Young v. State, 547 S.W.2d 23, 25 (Tex.Crim.App.1977); Allen v. State, 666 S.W.2d 245 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1984, pet. granted)......
-
State v. Herrera, 3238
...nevertheless indicated, is that past sexual conduct of the victim is simply not relevant to the issue of consent. Thus, Wilson v. State, 548 S.W.2d 51 (Tex.Cr.App.1977) states, without explanation, that the past sexual activities of the victim "were not germane to the issue of the victim's ......