Case Name: JOHNSON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-04-01
Citations: 270 S.W. 1028
Docket Number: No. 8829
Parties: JOHNSON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 270
Pages: 1028–1029

Head Matter:
JOHNSON v. STATE.
(No. 8829.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 1, 1925.)
Adultery 14 — 'Conviction held not supported by evidence.
Evidence held insufficient to support conviction of adultery.
Appeal from Comanche County Court; F. J. Reese, Judge.
W. T. Johnson was convicted of adultery, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
A. B. Haworth, of Comanche, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The offense is adultery; punishment fixed at a fine of $1,000.
The woman named is Flora Moffit. Edna Moffit, 18 years of age, a sister of Flora Moffit, testified that she, her sister, and the appellant went to a place called Cooper's place, and spent several weeks gathering pecans. They occupied a house of four rooms. The witness and her sister occupied one room, and the appellant another. Both on direct and cross examination the witness was definite in her statement that there was no act of intercourse with Flora by the appellant, and said that it could not have occurred without her knowledge; that she saw no misconduct or familiarity. The mother of Flora Moffit testified that Flora was 26 years of age, and that in the opinion of the witness she was in a state of pregnancy for 3 months at the time of the trial. She insisted that there could be, no opportunity for intercourse other than during the time Flora was with her sister and the appellant gathering pecans at the Oooper place; .that up to that time the witness had been careful that her daughter should not he alone with the appellant. Flora Moffit did not testify. There was no medical testimony that she was pregnant.
The state concedes that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. In this view we concur.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
<@£5>For'otñer cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes