Case Name: SHARP v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1910-11-30
Citations: 134 S.W. 333
Docket Number: 
Parties: SHARP v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 134
Pages: 333–334

Head Matter:
SHARP v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 30, 1910.
On Motion for Rehearing, Feb. 22, 1911.)
1. Seduction (§ 50 ) — Evidence — Instructions.
Where, on a trial for seduction, two witnesses testified that they had been criminally intimate with prosecutrix on several occasions prior to the intercourse between accused and prosecutrix, the refusal to charge that though prosecutrix yielded to accused under a promise of marriage, yet if before the promise of marriage, she had had criminal intercourse with other persons, accused must be acquitted, was reversible error.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Seduction, Cent. Dig. §§ 89-92; Dec. Dig. § 50. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Criminal Law (§ 1141 ) — Appeal —Instructions.
Where the trial court testified positively that he gave a charge that was lost, and not copied in the transcript, and one or two witnesses corroborated him, and the foreman of the jury testified that he had no recollection of the giving of such a charge, the court on appeal would assume that the charge had been given so that the conviction would not be set aside on the ground that the charge had not been given.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 3032; Dec. Dig. § 1144. ]
3. Criminal Law (§ 594 ) — Continuance — Grounds — Absence oe Witnesses.
Refusal to grant a first continuance on the ground of the absence of a witness who would testify to a material fact in defense was erroneous.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1321, 1322, 1332; Dec. Dig. § 594. ]
4. Criminal Law (§ 695 ) — Evidence — Admissibility.
It is not error to permit proof of the reputation of witnesses at the time of the trial as against an objection going only to the weight of the evidence.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1633-1638; Dec. Dig. § 695. ]
Appeal from District Court, Delta County; R. L. Porter, Judge.
Scott Sharp was convicted of crime, and lie appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Patteson & Patteson, Lennox & Lennox, and Moore & Park, for appellant. John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other -.ases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
McCORD, J.
Appellant was convicted of seduction, and awarded a term of five years' confinement in the penitentiary. Numerous questions are presented in the record, but as they are not likely to occur upon another trial, it is unnecessary to mention them.
In the trial of the case two witnesses testified, to wit, Sam Sinclair and Rich Akard, that each had intercourse with prosecutrix on several occasions, and at a time anterior to the intercourse between the defendant and prosecutrix. The court in its charge to the jury omitted to instruct them upon this Issue, but simply directed the jury that if they believed that the prosecutrix was under 25 years of age, and defendant had intercourse with her, and the same was under a promise of marriage, and she yielded her virtue in consideration of that promise, he would be guilty of the offense. The court instructed the jury that "seduction" means to lead an unmarried female under the age of 25 years away from the path of virtue, to entice or persuade her by means of a promise of marriage to surrender her chastity, and nowhere in the charge did he instruct the jury that if at the time she had intercourse with the defendant under a promise of marriage she was an unchaste woman, and had surrendered her person to other men, the defendant could not be guilty. " Appellant requested the court to charge the jury that' though they might- believe that prosecutrix yielded to the defendant under a promise of marriage and that he had intercourse with her, yet if they believe from the evidence that before such promise of marriage, if any, the prosecutrix had had carnal intercourse, with some other person or.persons, then it' would be their duty to acquit. This charge was refused. The facts of the case call for such a charge, and it was error for the court to fail to thus instruct the jury, for if she was not a chaste woman and had before that time had intercourse with other men, she would not be the subject of "seduction" as that term is known to the law. See Vantrees v. State, 128 S. W. 383.
For the error indicated, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.