Case ID: sw_193/html/0301-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ANDERSON v. STATE.
    (No. 4384.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 7, 1917.)
    1. AdultbRX <&wkey;14 — Evidence—Sufficiency.
    Evidence held insufficient to sustain a conviction of the offense of adultery.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Adultery, Cent. Dig. §§ 27, 31, 32.]
    2. Witnesses <&wkey;337(4) — Impeachment—Pri- or Unciiastity — Particular Acts.
    In a prosecution for adultery, where accused put in evidence her reputation for chastity and virtue, cross-examination as to birth of child to accused as result of illicit sexual intercourse, occurring 14 years before, was proper.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. § 1131.]
    Appeal from Ellis County Court; W. M. Tidwell, Judge.
    Mary Anderson was convicted of adultery, and she appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Clyde F. Winn, of Waxahaehie, for appellant. E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, J.

Appellant was charged with and convicted of adultery by habitual carnal intercourse without living together.' The evidence showed that the officers went to the house in which appellant and her daughter lived about midnight; that the house was dark and still; and that upon demanding admission, stating that they were officers, appellant opened the door, and on entering they found the house contained a bed and a cot; that the bed was occupied by the appellant’s 14 year old daughter, and the cot was occupied by a man by the name of Earnest Porter; that Earnest Porter was dressed in his shirt, underclothes, and socks, and that near the cot in which he lay was some female underclothing.

Appellant’s daughter testified that she and her mother had occupied the bed; that her mother had not got out of the bed until the officers called; that she had not occupied the bed with Porter, nor had he occupied her bed; that Porter came to the house, stating that he was sick and unable to go home, some mile and a half distant, and that he lay down on the cot and slept there by himself, and that witness and her mother slept in bed together; that Porter visited their house about twice a week, usually coming at night; that witness was present during his visits; that he had previously spent one night there on account of a hard rain coming up while he was there; that on that night he slept on the cot by himself, and witness and her mother slept in the bed together; that except on these two occasions he had never spent the night at their house.

Appellant challenges the sufficiency of this evidence, and in our opinion it is not sufficient, to sustain the conviction. The Assistant Attorney General concedes that it is not. The evidence is not materially different from that introduced in the case of Manuel v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. R. 97, 74 S. W. 30. In fact, the evidence in the last-named case was stronger against the appellant than that shown here. See, also, Cohen v. State, 11 Tex. App. 337; Hilton v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 193, 53 S. W. 113; Collins v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. R. 550, 80 S. W. 372; Boswell v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. R. 48, 85 S. W. 1077, 122 Am. St Rep. 731; Taylor v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. R. 216, 87 S. W. 148; Curlee v. State, 98 S. W. 840; Quinn v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 155, 101 S. W. 248; Hutchinson v. State, 108 S. W. 378; Wallace v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. R. 611, 141 S. W. 95.

Complaint is made of the admission of proof that 14 or 15 years prior to the date of the alleged offense appellant had given birth to a child as the result of an illicit relation. As a general rule evidence so remote as this is not admissible, but under the peculiar facts of this ease, appellant having put her reputation for virtue and chastity in evidence, it was not error for the state to develop on cross-examination that her daughter was illegitimate.

Because the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction, the judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the cause remanded.