Case Name: Jose Lopez v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-01-14
Citations: 99 Tex. Crim. 194
Docket Number: No. 8782
Parties: Jose Lopez v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 99
Pages: 194–196

Head Matter:
JANUARY, 1925.
Jose Lopez v. The State.
No. 8782.
Delivered January 14, 1925.
Rehearing denied, February 18, 1925.
1. —Rape Under Age — Age of Prosecutrix — Sufficiently Established.
Appellant was convicted for rape upon one Ella Dicke, who was alleged to be under the age of consent. Under the undisputed evidence, prosecutrix was an unchaste female, and the state was not entitled to a conviction unless it established an act of intercourse between her and appellant, before her fifteenth birthday. The court so instructed the jury, and they found against appellant.
2. —Rape—Evidence—Must Show Prosecutrix Not Appellant’s Wife.
Complaint is made that the evidence does not negative that prosecutrix was appellant’s wife at the time of the act of intercourse relied upon by the state. We cannot agree to such contention. Prosecutrix testified that she was not married to appellant. It is clearly shown that prosecutrix had never been married to appellant. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Appeal from the District Court of Uvalde County. Tried below before the Hon. R. IT. Burney, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for rape upon one Ella Dicke, alleged to be under the age of consent; penalty, eight years in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the ease.
Will Glover, of Uvalde, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney ,for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
Appeal is from a conviction for rape upon one Ella Dicke, who was alleged to be under the age of consent. Penalty eight years in the penitentiary.
No error was committed in refusing the requested charge to the effect that prosecutrix was unchaste since her first act of intercourse with appellant, or with any other man. It contained a correct proposition of law, but the learned trial judge had obviated any necessity for such instruction by the wording of his general charge. Under the undisputed evidence prosecutrix was an unchaste female, and the state was entitled to no conviction unless it established an act of intercourse between her and appellant before her fifteenth birthday. The court so instructed the jury, and also told them she had become unchaste long prior to that date.
Appellant makes no contention that the evidence is insufficient save that he avers it fails to show prosecutrix was not appellant's wife between July 1st and 16th, 1923, this being the time relied on by the State as the date of the offense. Prosecutrix testified that she was not married to appellant, but that he was the father of one child born to her when she was fourteen years old, and was at the time of trial again pregnant by him. We deem it unnecessary to set out the evidence further, but regard it as clearly showing that prosecutrix had never been married to appellant. He did not testify himself and offered no defensive evidence.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.