Case Name: LOPEZ v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-01-14
Citations: 268 S.W. 748
Docket Number: No. 8782
Parties: LOPEZ v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 268
Pages: 748–749

Head Matter:
LOPEZ v. STATE.
(No. 8782.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 14, 1925.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 18, 1925)
1. Rape <&wkey;l — State must prove intercourse with unchaste female before her fifteenth birthday.
Accused could not be convicted of statutory rape on unchaste female unless state proved intercourse took place before her fifteenth birthday.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;829 (4) — Refusal of charge covered by charge given held not error.
Refusal of charge covered by charge given as to uncbastity of victim of rape held not error.
3. Rape &wkey;>5l(l) — Evidence held sufficient to show prosecutrix had never been married to ’ accused.
Evidence held sufficient to show prosecutrix had never been married to accused.
On Motion for Rehearing.
4. Criminal law <&wkey;>l 159(2) — Conviction held not reversible on ground acts of intercourse had not been proved.
In prosecution for rape on unchaste female, held that appellate court could not overturn conviction on ground acts of intercourse, or their commission prior to prosecutrix’s fifteenth birthday, had not been proved, where testimony of prosecutrix was supported by evidence of opportunity and previous intimacy of parties.
Appeal from District Court, Uvalde County ; R. H. Burney, Judge.
Jose Lopez was convicted of rape, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Will Glover, of Uvalde, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS; J.
Appeal is from a conviction for rape upon one Ella- Dicke, who was alleged to be-under the age of consent. Penalty eight'-years in the penitentiary.
No error was committed in refusing the requested' chárge to the effect that pros-ecutrix was unchaste since her first' act of intercourse with- appellant, or with any other man. It contained a correct proposition of law, but the learned trial judge had obviated any necessity for such instruction by the wording of his general charge. Under the undisputed evidence prosecutrix was an unchaste female, and the state was entitled to no conviction unless it established an act of intercourse between her and appellant before her fifteenth birthday. The court so instructed the jury, and also told them she had become unchaste long prior to that date.
Appellant makes no contention that the evidence is insufficient, save that he avers it fails to show prosecutrix was not appellant's-wife between July 1 and 16, 1923; this being the time relied on by the state as the date of the offense. Prosecutrix testified that she was not married to appellant, but that he was the father of one child born to her when she was 14 years old, and was at the time of trial again pregnant by him. We deem it unnecessary to set out the evidence further, but regard it as clearly showing that prosecutrix had never been- married to appellant. He did not testify himself and offered no defensive evidence.
The judgment is affirmed.
(§=s>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in-all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes