Case Name: Juan Mireles v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1918-06-23
Citations: 83 Tex. Crim. 608
Docket Number: No. 4579
Parties: Juan Mireles v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 83
Pages: 608–612

Head Matter:
Juan Mireles v. The State.
No. 4579.
Decided June 23, 1918.
Rehearing granted June 26, 1918.
1.—Rape—Misconduct of Jury—Public Policy.
The bill of exceptions alleging misconduct of the jury, in view of the court’s qualification that it was not supported by proof, does not present reversible error. Besides, the use made by the jury of evidence legitimately before it can not be inquired into as a matter of public policy. Following Turner v. State, 161 Texas Crim. Rep., 97, and other cases.
8.—Same—Age of Prosecutrix—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of rape upon a female under the age of consent, the evidence as to the age of prosecutrix was conflicting, yet sufficient to sustain the conviction, there was no reversible error on that ground.
3. —Same—Continuance—Diligence—Motion for New Trial.
Where, upon trial of rape upon a female under the age of consent, defendant’s application for continuance was overruled, and it appeared from the ^record on appeal in the defendant’s motion for a new trial that the time intervening between the overruling of the application and adjournment of the court 'was so short that the defendant could not procure a verification of his claim That the records as to age of prosecutrix in Mexico would support his theory of defense, a new trial should have been granted.
4. —Same—Census Reports—Original Evidence—Rebuttal.
Census reports are treated as original evidence of facts, which under the law are required to be recorded, at any event the census reports in the instant case were admissible as rebuttal testimony. Following Lott v. State, 66 Texas Crim. Rep., 152, 146 S. W. Rep., 544.
Appeal from the District Court of Brooks. Tried below before the Hon. G. W. Taylor.
Appeal from a conviction of rape; penalty, five years confinement in • the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
John G. North, for appellant.
On question of insufficiency of the evidence: Tiers v. State, 2 Texas Crim. App., 244; Mason v. State, 29 id., 24; Dewberry v. State, 32 Texas Crim. Rep., 145.
E. B. Hendricks, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Judge.
The appeal is from a conviction for statutory rape and punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of five years.
The application for continuance, based upon the absence of knowledge of witnesses by whom the age of the' female named in the indictment might be proved and the belief that the fact that she was over fifteen years of age could be established by delay, was not followed by any verification of the motion for new trial or the accuracy, of the information or belief upon which the motion is founded.
The bill alleging misconduct of the jury in view of the court's qualification that it was not supported by proof does not present error. The assignment in the motion for new trial, and in vthe bill of exception mentioned charging misconduct of the jury was one, we think, that the court was not required to hear evidence upon for the reason that it was too genera], and further, was a character of alleged misconduct inquiry into which is prohibited by public policy, namely, the use made by the jury of evidence legitimately before it. Turner v. State, 61 Texas Crim. Rep., 97; Watson v. State, recently decided; Jack v. State, 20 Texas Crim. App., 656; Morrison v. State, 39 Texas Crim. Rep., 519; Black v. State, 41 Texas Crim. Rep., 185; Kannmacher v. State, 51 Texas Crim. Rep., 118.
The sufficiency of the proof of the age of the female named in the indictment is challenged. It is conflicting and the conclusion that the age of the girl is not shown to be under fifteen years could well have been reached; but deferring to the rule of law which makes the solution by the jury of controverted questions of fact binding upon the courts where there has been no error in the conduct of the trial, we are constrained to overrule the assignment complaining of the sufficiency of the evidence.
The injured party testified to her age as under fifteen years at the time of the offense, declaring that she testified from knowledge derived from her mother. This character of testimony has been received and given weight in numerous instances. Boyd v. State, 72 Texas Crim. Rep., 521, 163 S. W. Rep., 67; Lott v. State, 66 Texas Crim. Rep., 152, 146 S. W. Rep., 544; Knowles v. State, 44 Texas Crim. Rep., 322; Sheppard v. State, 56 Texas Crim. Rep., 604; Vaughn v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 24. The girl's mother testified to her age, though she was unable to state the year of her birth. She did state, however, the day of the month. Similar testimony was relied upon in Vaughn v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 24. There were census returns introduced in. evidence contradicting or tending to contradict the testimony as to the age of the injured female. One of these reports signed by the father of the injured party contained a schedule of the ages of his children which would have made his daughter, the person named in the indictment, more than fifteen years at the time of the offense. There were also some contradictory statements by the injured female herself tending to impeach her testimony as to her age. The parties appear to have been unfamiliar with the English language and lacking in education, and an effort was made on the part of the State to explain the discrepancy on these grounds. The evidence of the mother of the injured party, in spite of the contradictions and effort to impeach, having been accepted by the jury as true and their finding having been approved by the trial judge, we feel indisposed to disregard their conclusions.
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
Affirmed.