Case ID: sw_268/html/0467-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "■ LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HUBERT v. STATE.
    (No. 8925.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 28, 1925.)
    Rape <®=:»43(2)— Admission of testimony of prosecutrix’s mother as to examination of . prosecutrix held not error.
    In prosecution for assault with intent to commit rape, admission of testimony of pros-ecutrix’s mother as to examination >of prosecu-trix on day of alleged offense, held not error, though state did not show time of day when such examination was made.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Harris County; G..W. Robinson, Judge.
    James Hubert was convicted of assault with intent to rape, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   ■ LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the criminal district court of Harris county of' assault with intent to rape, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years.

The parties to the transaction were ne-groes. The alleged injured party was a girl seven or eight years old, who testified that, appellant got on her on the occasion mentioned, and put his male organ against her private parts. Other witnesses testified that they saw appellant in this position, and saw him moving his body up and down. Appellant testified denying the accusation. The case was submitted to the jury under a presentation of the law to which no exception was taken. There is but one bill of exceptions in the record, which presents appellant’s complaint, directed at the admission of- the testimony of the mother of prosecutrix to the effect that she examined her daughter on the day of. the alleged assault, and as to what appeared to her to be the condition of the-private parts of the child. The ground of the objection is that the state did not show what time of the day the examination was made. We do not. think 'the bill presents any error.

The jury having resolved the issues of fact adversely to appellant,' and there being testimony in the record supporting their conclusion, and, no error appearing, the judgment will be affirmed. 
      <g=»Fdr other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes.