Case Name: PETREY v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1953-04-08
Citations: 258 S.W.2d 808
Docket Number: No. 26278
Parties: PETREY v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 258
Pages: 808–810

Head Matter:
PETREY v. STATE.
No. 26278.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 8, 1953.
Rehearing Denied May 27, 1953.
Harris E: Lofthus and O. M. Calhoun, Amarillo, for appellant.
F. H. Richards, Dist. Atty., Dalhart, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
BELCHER, Commissioner.
The conviction is for rape; penalty assessed at 50 years.
Jeanette Petrey Lemon testified that she was fourteen years of age on December 1, 1951, the date of the alleged offense, and fifteen years old on the day of the trial. She further testified that she was the daughter of the accused; that he had sexual intercourse with her for the first time about two years prior to December, 1951, that from the first act until about December 1, 1951, he had sexual intercourse with her approximately twice each month; that the first act was at thgir home and the others on the road between Wildorado, and Vega, and at these times he had a pistol in the glove compartment of the car; that she was afraid of the accused and for this reason submitted to him; that she first told her mother in February or March, 1952, and her mother called the sheriff.
Dr. Lokey testified that on March 23, 1952, he, upon examination of the prose-cutrix, found her private parts to be in the condition of a woman who had frequent sexual intercourse.
Appellant made three separate statements —the first statement on June 2, the second on June 6, and the third on June 12, 1952.
When the third statement was offered in evidence, the court retired the jury and heard evidence by the state and appellant as to its voluntary character, and admitted it in evidence over appellant's objection that it was involuntary, holding that there was an issue of fact to be submitted to tile jury. Later, the statements made on' June 2 and June 6 were admitted in evidence, and the issue of their voluntariness was submitted to the jury together with' the volun-tariness of the statement dated on June 12, and such issues were resolved against appellant.
In each confession, the appellant admits that he had sexual intercourse with prose-cutrix, and the confession dated June 12 states that he had such an act' with the -prosecutrix "on or about the 1st day of December, 1951."
Appellant testified at the hearing' on the admissibility of the confession dated June 12 and before the jury, and each time claimed that he was promised certain concessions and was abused and threatened; and further testified denying any sexual relations with the prosecutrix.
Appellant insists that the court erre'd'in permitting the state to ask the prosecutrix leading questions, and further- contends that the evidence to support the charge was developed by leading questions and that such procedure was eri;or.
Considering the age of the prose-cutrix, her relationship to the accused, and that she had lived at his home all her life; that she said on the witness stand .several times that she did not want to testify; ' and the fact, that she was an unwilling witness, leads us to the conclusion that the. court did not err in permitting leading questions to be asked prosecutrix under the peculiar circumstances of this .case. Carter v. State, 59 Tex.Cr.R. 73, 127 S.W. 215.
Appellant contends that the court- erred in sustaining the state's challenge for cause to the prospective juror, Victor E. Lejnke.
The'record reveals that Victor E. Lemke was one of the compurgators upon the affidavit for change of venue; that '.he was a witness upon the hearing of thq motion to change venue; that he had talked to appellant after said charge was filed; that he had contributed njoney to pay the attorney's fee for the defense; and no showing is .made that án objectionable juror sat on the case.
No error is shown by the action of the trial court in sustaining the- challenge to said prospective juror. . ' <
It is contended that the epurt erred in excluding the testimony of the same Victor E. Lemke, called as a defense wi.tness, after objection by .the state upon the ground, that said witness was present in the coqrt ypom during the examination of the state's witnesses.
In the absence of the jury, appellant submitted the proffered testimony of the witness • Lemke to the cou'rt, which testimony related his conversations with 'and observations of appellant when he- visited him:in jail'. The state then further objected to Lemke testifying on the. ground that said testimony was immaterial and self serving, and the state's objection was sustained.
The rule was invoked as to witnesses. Lemke was notified one night, after the trial began, to appear the next morning at 9 A..M., and he responded. Lemke sat in the court room from 9 A.M. until he was called as a witness, and during which time ¡testimony was being heard.
No abuse of discretion of the trial court is. shown in refusing to permit the above testimony of the witness Lemke to go before the jury, thus no error is shown. Long v. State, 120 Tex.Cr.R. 373, 48 S.W.2d 632, 637.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. ' !
Opinion approved by the Court.