Case Name: James Hubert v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-01-28
Citations: 99 Tex. Crim. 45
Docket Number: No. 8925
Parties: James Hubert v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 99
Pages: 45–45

Head Matter:
James Hubert v. The State.
No. 8925.
Delivered Jan. 28, 1925.
Assault to Rape — Evidence—Mother of Prosecutrix — As to Her Condition.
Objection was made to tbe testimony of prosecutrix’s mother, to the effect that she examined her daughter on the day of the alleged assault, and as to what appeared to be the condition of the private parts of the child. That testimony was properly admitted.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Harris County. Tried below before the Honorable C. W. Robinson, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for an assault with intent to rape, penalty, two years in the penitentiary.
No brief filed by appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the Criminal District Court of Harris county of assault with intent to rape, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years.
The parties to the transaction were negroes. The alleged injured party was a girl seven or eight years old, who testified that appellant got on her on the occasion mentioned and put his male organ against her private parts. Other witnesses testified that they saw appellant in this position and saw him moving his body up and down. Appellant testified denying the accusation. The case was submitted to the jury under a presentation of the law to which no exception was taken. There is but one bill of exceptions in the record which presents appellant's complaint directed at .the admission of the testimony of the mother of prosecutrix to the effect that she examined her daughter on the day of the alleged assault and as to what appeared to her to be the condition of the private parts of the child. The ground of the objection is that the State did not show what time of the day the examination was made. We do not think the bill presents any error.
The jury having resolved the issues of fact adversely to appellant and there being testimony in the record supporting their conclusion, and no error appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.