Case Name: S. T. Bodkins v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-12-02
Citations: 75 Tex. Crim. 499
Docket Number: No. 3254
Parties: S. T. Bodkins v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 75
Pages: 499–505

Head Matter:
S. T. Bodkins v. The State.
No. 3254.
Decided December 2, 1914.
Rehearing denied January 6, 1915.
1.—Recognizance—Reinstatement.
Where the recognizance was defective in not concluding with the words “in this State” and the appeal dismissed, but a sufficient recognizance was thereafter filed, the appeal is reinstated.
3.—Same—Adultery—Limitation—Evidence—Other Acts of Intercourse.
Where, upon trial of adultery, the evidence showed that the acts of sexual intercourse were begun by the defendant while prosecutrix was only fourteen years old and continued for two years, there was no error in admitting evidence -to this effect, the court limiting the jury to the acts which occurred within the period of limitation.
8.—Same—Evidence—Cross-examination.
Upon trial of adultery, there was no error in permitting prosecutrix to testify that she had never had intercourse with any other man than defendant; owing to the cross-examination of defendant.
4. —Same—Evidence—Birth of Child—Other Circumstances.
Upon trial of adultery, there was no error in permitting prosecuting witness to testify that she gave hirth to a baby while in the home for fallen women' and to testify why she left home, in connection with the other testimony.
5. —Same—Evidence—Cross-examination.
Where, upon trial of adultery, defendant denied that he had ever had sexual intercourse with prosecutrix, and introduced testimony tending to reflect on her good name, there was no error to ask him on cross-examination if he knew of any reason why the girl should testify falsely against him, to which he answered that he did not.
6. —Same—Argument of Counsel.
Where, upon trial of adultery, the testimony showed that the acts of sexual intercourse between the parties began when prosecutrix was only fourteen years of age, and that the first intimation the officers had was when the prosecutrix was passed sixteen years of age, there was no error in permitting the county attorney, in his argument, to say that if the statutes of limitation had not run against the offense of rape, that the defendant would have been prosecuted for rape instead of adultery, as this was a legitimate comment on the evidence.
7. —Same—Objections to Charge of Court—Surplusage.
Where the bill of exceptions did not show that the objections to the charge of the court were made before the same were read to the jury, the same need not -be considered on appeal; however, the court’s charge required the jury to find that the defendant was married to another person at the time he was charged with adultery, and it was not necessary to- require him to find that he was married to a certain woman, naming her; besides, the evidence showed such facts as alleged in the indictment.
8. —Same—Charge of Court—Living Together—Definition of Offense.
It is not necessary in the offense of adultery that the parties should live together as man and wife; it is only necessary that they live together and have sexual intercourse. Following Shaw v. State, 49 Texas Crim. Bep., 379, and other cases.
9. —Same—Charge of Court.
Where, upon trial of adultery, the evidence sustained the conviction, there was no error in refusing a peremptory charge to acquit the defendant.
10. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence—Corroboration.
Where, upon trial of adultery, the evidence was sufficient to corroborate the testimony of the prosecutrix to the extent required by law, and in addition the defendant confessed practically that he had committed the offense, the conviction was sustained .under a proper charge of the court.
Appeal from the County Court of Tarrant. Tried below before the Hon. T. W. Simmons.
Appeal from a conviction of adultery; penalty, a fine of $1000.
The opinion states the case.
Poulter & Johnson, for appellant.
—On question of argument of counsel: Davis v. State, 54 Texas Crim. Rep., 236, 114 S. W. Rep., 366; Hemphill v. State, 165 S. W. Rep., 446; Daniels v. State, 160 S. W. Rep., 707.
On question of accomplice: Wright v. State, 47 Texas Crim. Rep., 433, 84 S. W. Rep., 593; Powell v. State, 50 Texas Crim. Rep., 592, 99 S. W. Rep., 1005; Chambers v. State, 44 S. W. Rep., 495; Welden v. State, 10 Texas Crim. App., 400; Dunn v. State, 15 id., 560; Tisdale v. State, 17 id., 444.
On question of admitting testimony of birth of child as no corroboration of accomplice testimony: Nolen v. State, 60 Texas Crim. Rep., 5, 129 S. W. Rep., 1108.
On question of living together in adultery: Boswell v. State, 48 Texas Crim. Rep., 47, 85 S. W. Rep., 1076; Randell v. State, 12 Texas Crim. App., 250; Lynch v. State, 24 id., 350; Murphy v. State, 36 Texas Crim. Rep., 34.
On question of alleging name of wife requiring proof thereof: Butts v. State, 47 Texas Crim. Rep., 494, 84 S. W. Rep., 586; Robinson v. State, 60 Texas Crim. Rep., 353, 132 S. W. Rep., 944; Tucker v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Rep., 291, 128 S. W. Rep., 617; Poston v. State, 58 Texas Crim. Rep., 583, 126 S. W. Rep., 1148; McAlister v. State, 58 Texas Crim. Rep., 188, 116 S. W. Rep., 582.
On question of other acts of sexual intercourse and limitation: Duncan v. State, 40 Texas Crim. Rep., 591, 45 S. W. Rep., 921.
O. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Judge.'
—The Assistant Attorney General moves to dismiss this appeal because of the insufficiency of the recognizance. We find that his motion is well taken. It does not comply with that part of the statute which requires the form of the recognizance to conclude with the words "in this case." Quite a number of cases have been dismissed upon this omission in the recognizance, and following those cases the motion will be granted and the appeal dismissed.
Dismissed.