Case ID: tex-crim_96/html/0371-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Claude Terry v. The State.
    No. 8245.
    Decided January 23, 1924.
    Rape — Requested Charges — Bills of Exception.
    Where, upon appeal from a conviction of rape, there appeared in the record a number of special charges which were refused hut the record reflects no exception to such refusal, and the bills of exception were in question and answer form, and some to the argument of the district attorney, the court after a careful examination finds no reversible error and the judgment is affirmed.
    Appeal from the District Court of El Paso. Tried below before the Honorable W. D. Howe.
    Appeal from a conviction of rape; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    
      Clarence S. T. Folsom, A. T. Folsom and W. H. Fryer, for appellant.
    On question or argument of counsel: Tillery v. State, 5 S. W. Rep., 842; Dunn v. State, 161 id., 467; Bryson v. State, 20 Texas Crim. App., 566.
    
      Tom Garrard and Grover C. Morris, Assistants Attorney General, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the District Court of El Paso County of rape, and his punishment fixed at five years in the penitentiary.

Appellant was charged with statutory rape, the prosecutrix being; a girl sixteen years old at the time of the commission of the alleged offense. The proof shows that appellant drove with the girl in a car to El Paso and that they procured apartments and held themselves out as husband and wife for several months. The girl reluctantly testified that at said apartment and on the first night after their arrival in El Paso appellant had carnal connection with her, that being the first occasion of such conduct on her part with any man. There appear a number of special charges which were refused but the record reflects no exception to such refusal. There are four bills of exception, the first and second of which are in question and answer form and under the uniform decisions of this court can not be considered. The remaining two bills of exception are to arguments of the district attorney. We have carefully examined each of said bills and find nothing in them calling for a reversal of this case.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.