Case Name: Alfred Hollingsworth v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-01-29
Citations: 85 Tex. Crim. 248
Docket Number: No. 5265
Parties: Alfred Hollingsworth v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 85
Pages: 248–251

Head Matter:
Alfred Hollingsworth v. The State.
No. 5265.
Decided January 29, 1919.
Rehearing granted April 23, 1919.
1.
—Incest—Bills of Exception—Practice on Appeal—Rehearing.
Where it was shown, on motion for rehearing, that the time in which bills of exception were authorized to be filed was extended; the case will, be heard on its merits.
2.
—Same—Evidence—Letter—Former Appeal.
Where, upon trial of incest, it appeared from the record on appeal that this court held on a former appeal that a certain letter, written by the prosecutrix to the defendant, was inadmissible in evidence, it is unnecessary to again rule upon this point, and the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, because said letter was again admitted in evidence. Following Hollingsworth v. State, 78 Texas Crim. Rep., 489, and other cases.
3.
—Same-—Evidence—Declarations of Prosecutrix.
On trial of incest, evidence by prosecutrix, given before the grand jury as to the declarations of prosecutrix, should not have been admitted, as the same was hearsay. Following Hollingsworth v. State, 78 Texas Crim. Rep., 489.
4.
—Same—Evidence—Declarations of Defendant—Charge of Court.
Where, upon trial of incest, the exculpatory statement of the defendant was introduced in evidence, the court should have instructed the jury, as requested, that they could not use this statement as a criminative fact, unless the State disproved same, and he was .entitled to an acquittal.
5.
—Same—Other Offense—Charge of Court—Accomplice.
An accomplice cannot corroborate himself, and upon trial of incest the prosecutrix could not corroborate her testimony by other extraneous acts, and where the court’s charge instructed the jury that they could consider said testimony only for the purpose of throwing light on the transaction, with which defendant is charged, the same was reversible error.
Appeal from the District Court of Coryell County. Tried below before the Hon. J. H. Arnold, judge.
Appeal from a conviction of incest; penalty five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
D. W. Odell, for appellant.
E. A. Berry, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was convicted of incest, his punishment being assessed at five years confinement in the penitentiary.
Before court adjourned there was an order entered allowing sixty days to the defendant in which to file his bills of exception and statement of facts. Court adjourned the 24th of August, and the statement of facts and bills of exception, except two bills, were filed on November 8th. One bill bears no file mark. The Assistant Attorney General moves to strike from consideration all the bills of exception except that filed within the time, which is bill No. 1. Under the rules and the authorities the motion as to the bills of exception will have to be sustained. The decisions are quite numerous sustaining the above proposition. This, however, does not apply to the statement of facts. There would be ninety days allowed after the adjournment of the term of court in which to file the statement of facts. Redman v. State, 67 Texas Crim. Rep., 374; Romero v. State, 72 Texas Crim. Rep., 105. The bills of exception, in order to be considered, must have been filed within the sixty days allowed.
Bill No. 1 reserved exceptions to the action of the court admitting certain letters, which are not set out in the bill but referred to in the statement of facts. The judge qualifies this bill by stating these letters were held by this court on the last appeal, in an opinion written by Judge Morrow, to be admissible. It would be of no practical utility to discuss that matter.
It is further contended that the evidence is not sufficient for want of corroboration. The girl testifies to a case against appellant. We are of opinion that, taking all the circumstances as shown in this record, there is sufficient evidence tending to connect the defendant with the case testified by the prosecutrix.
As the case is presented by the record we find no reversible error, and the judgment is ordered to be affirmed.
Affirmed.