Case Name: C. A. Steinke v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1894-01-20
Citations: 33 Tex. Crim. 65
Docket Number: No. 348
Parties: C. A. Steinke v. The State.
Judges: Judges all present and concurring.
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 65–67

Head Matter:
C. A. Steinke v. The State.
No. 348.
Decided January 20.
Motion for Rehearing, Decided February 21.
1. Assault With Intent to Rape — Character of Prosecutrix. — It is always competent in cases of assault with intent to rape to impeach the character of the prose-cutrix for want of chastity by proof of general reputation, or acts of illicit intercourse with defendant. But such testimony is material only where there is some question as to consent of the prosecutrix. Where force, without consent, is shown to have been used beyond question, evidence of such character would he worse than idle.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
2. Same — Evidence Insufficient. — See opinion for facts stated which are held to he insufficient to support a conviction for assault with intent to rape.
Appeal from the District Court of Lamar. Tried below before Hon. B. D. MoClellan.
This appeal is from a conviction for assault with intent to rape, the punishment being assessed at five years in the penitentiary.
The opinion on rehearing sufficiently states the case.
O. N. Allen, for appellant.
R. L. Henry, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
SIMKINS, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of an assault with intent to rape one Annie Volmer, and his punishment assessed at five years in the State penitentiary. On trial the appellant having proved by one Print that the prosecutrix's character for chastity was bad, on cross-examination by the State the witness testified that one Miss Mason had stated to his wife in his presence that prosecutrix was locked up in a room in an hotel with a man for two hours. Appellant then offered Miss Mason to prove that this statement was true, but, on objection by the State, the testimony-was ruled out, and appellant excepted. It is always competent, in cases of this kind, to impeach the character of the prosecutrix for want of chastity, not to justify or excuse the act, but to raise the presumption of consent. The proof may be made by general reputation, or by acts of illicit intercourse with appellant himself. Wilson's case, 17 Texas Crim. App., 633. But we may concede that the rule might be extended to proof of illicit intercourse with other men. People v. Abbot, 19 Wend., 194; Benstine v. The State, 2 Lea, 169. Still the ruling of the court would not be reversible error. Such testimony becomes material only where there is some question as to the consent of the prosecutrix. In this case there seems to be no question as to the force used and the want of consent. As said by the court in the Wilson case, supra, rape may be committed on the most notorious prostitute, and, if the physical facts and personal violence are proven, it were worse than idle to attempt to rebut them simply by proof of the want of chastity. The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Judges all present and concurring.