Case Name: Ildefonso Mora v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-04-15
Citations: 74 Tex. Crim. 26
Docket Number: No. 3092
Parties: Ildefonso Mora v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 74
Pages: 26–28

Head Matter:
Ildefonso Mora v. The State.
No. 3092.
Decided April 15, 1914.
Rehearing denied May 13, 1914.
1.—Rape—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Upon trial of rape upon a female under the age of consent where the evidence sustained the conviction, there was no error on that ground.
3.-—Same—Evidence—Confessions—Marriage.
Upon trial of rape, there was no error in showing that the prosecutrix was not married to the -defendant, and the objection that the testimony was not sworn to was untenable, as this fact was admitted in open court by the confessions of the defendant.
3. —Same—Charge of Court—Objections.
Objections to the charge of the court must be made before it is read to the jury, and it is too late to complain thereof in a motion for new trial.
4. -—Same—Election by State.
Where, upon trial of rape, different acts of sexual intercourse were in evidence and the defendant filed a motion in due time to require the State to elect upon which act of intercourse it would rely for a conviction, the motion should have been sustained, and it was reversible error not to do so, especially, where the court charged otherwise. Following Battles v. State, 63 Texas Crim. Rep., 147.
Appeal from the District Court of Webb. Tried 'below before the Hon. J. F. Mullally.
Appeal from a conviction of rape; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
G. A. McLean and N. A. Rector, for appellant.
On question of different acts of sexual intercourse: Batchelor v. State, 41 Texas Crim, Rep., 501, and cases cited in opinion.
G. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney General, or the State.

Opinion:
HABPEB, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of rape on a girl under fifteen years of age, and his punishment assessed at five years confinement in the State penitentiary.
The first ground in the motion for new trial contends that the evidence is insufficient because no witness named the year in which prosecutrix was born. The evidence amply shows that she was under fifteen years of age, for while the year of birth was not named, yet it was fixed by an event, and the date of this shown, and it would be immaterial under such circumstances whether or not she gave her consent to the act of intercourse. Penetration was testified to by the girl, and admitted by appellant in his confession introduced in evidence. So this fact was sufficiently proven.
As to there being no sworn testimony that Baquel Ojeda was not married to defendant, this was admitted in open court on the trial of this case. The evidence amply supports the verdict, and under the testimony in this case there was no error in admitting the confession in evidence.
This case was tried in December of last year, and no objections were made to the charge as given during the trial of the case and before it was read to the jury, and it is too late now to complain of the charge for the first time in the motion for new trial.
The judgment is affirmed.
'Affirmed.