Case Name: PETTY v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-11-01
Citations: 249 S.W. 849
Docket Number: No. 7168
Parties: PETTY v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 249
Pages: 849–851

Head Matter:
PETTY v. STATE.
(No. 7168.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 1, 1922.
On Motion for Rehearing, March 28, 1923.)
I. Criminal law &wkey;?l 153(3) — Permitting state to introduce evidence after defendant closed a matter of discretion,
. .The trial court's latitude in the order of introduction of testimohy is almost unlimited, and, unless there be affirmative showing of some injury or probability thereof in permitting the state to introduce evidence after defendant has closed, the appellate court will not ordinarily review the court’s action, in View of Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 718.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Rape <&wkey;>7 — Proof of penetration essential.
To constitute the offense of rape under Pen. Code 1911, art. 1067, proof of penetration is absolutely essential.
3. Criminal law (&wkey;56l (2) — Rape &wkey;5l(3)— Penetration may be proved by circumstances, but miist be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
In the absence of direct evidence of penetration, it may be proved by circumstances, but it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. Rape <&wkey;>52(2) — Evidence held not to- exclude every reasonable hypothesis than guilt.
In prosecution for rape of a girl under the age of consent, where the state relied, in chief, on evidence of a witness who stated he had seen an act of intercourse between defendant and prosecutrix, which was denied by defendant, and thereafter the state called prosecutrix, who denied penetration, the evidence did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of guilt.
- Appeal from District Court, Ellis County; W. L. Harding, Judge.
George Petty was convicted of rape on a girl under the age of consent and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Tom Whipple, of Waxahachie, for appellant!
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Ellis county of the offense of rape upon a girl under the age of Consent, and given five years in the penitentiary.
There was abundant evidence showing numerous occasions on which the appellant met the little girl in question, who was but 14 years of age, and took her out riding in his car. Appellant was a married man. One witness testified positively to seeing an act of intercourse . between appellant and pros-ecutrix. Two physicians who examined the child said that her private parts were enlarged so as that she could easily have had intercourse with a man.
There is but one bill of exceptions in the record which presents appellant's objection to the introduction of the girl as a witness after appellant had himself testified, it being objected that this was not rebuttal evidence. The latitude given to our trial courts in the order of the introduction of testimony is almost without limitation, and unless there be an affirmative showing of some injury or the probability thereof from the action of the court in. allowing the state to introduce evidence after the defendant has closed,- - we will not ordinarily review the action of the court below. See. article 718, Vernon's C. C. P., and authorities cited; Hewitt v. State, 10 Tex. App. 506; Mancha v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 335, 123 S. W. 129. An examination of the testimony of the witness complained of reveals the fact that much of her testimony was in rebuttal. Appellant positively affirmed that he had never driven her out in his car but three times, and that he had never hugged her or kissed her, or indulged in familiarity with ber person. She contradicted him upon each of the above questions.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
tíir^>For other cases see same topic and'KEY-NUMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes