Case ID: sw_240/html/0310-01.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

Ex parte WOLF.
    (No. 7005.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 3, 1922.)
    Bail <&wkey;53 — $10,000 bail, for a charge of assault to rape, reduced to $2,500.
    Where the crime charged is assault to rape, and the evidence disclosed that accused had very little property, and that none of his relatives were people of means, and that the crime charged did not constitute rape, held, that bail of $10,000 was excessive, and should be reduced to $2,500.
    Appeal from District Court, Wilson County ; Covey C. Thomas, Judge.
    Ray Wolf was charged with assault to rape. Application for a reduction of bail was refused, and he appeals.
    Bail reduced.
    R. W. Hudson, of Pearsall, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court of the Eighty-Eirst judicial district, remanding appellant to the custody of the sheriff of Erio county, Tex., in default of bail in the sum of $10,000.

It appears, from the record herein that appellant was charged by affidavit in the magistrate’s court with the crime of assault to rape, and that on the 10th of April, 1922, a preliminary trial having been waived, the bond of appellant was fixed by the justice of the peace at the sum of $10,000. Thereafter a writ of habeas corpus was sued out before the district judge of the Eighty-Eirst judicial district, alleging that said sum of $10,000 was excessive bail, and that he was not able to give same. Upon a hearing on said habeas corpus proceedings appellant was remanded to jail, and his bond fixed again at the sum of $10,000. Upon said hearing it was shown that appellant had very little property, and that none of his relatives, who are willing to execute bond for him, are people of means. In resistance to the application for a reduction of bail presented to the district court the state introduced the young woman upon whom the alleged assault was committed, and also a physician who was called to examine her after the alleged assault.

Without commenting upon the facts in testimony on behalf of the state, it would appear beyond question that some character of assault was made upon the young lady by appellant. It was not claimed by the state that the offense charged against appellant amounted to rape, and therefore it would be classed as an ordinary felony. We are unable to see any reason why the case against appellant should be taken out of the ordinary run of felony cases by the requirement of a much larger bail than is usual or customary in such cases. The bail usual in cases of this kind would run from $750 to $1,000. There must have been some reason in the mind of the learned trial court for fixing a higher bond than usual. Conceding some such reason, we still think the amount of bail fixed to be excessive.

The judgment of the trial court will be re- ■ versed, and bail will be fixed in the sum of $2,500, upon the giving of which, with good and sufficient sureties, appellant will be released. 
      
       — .ffnr other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Ipdexes