Court Opinion

ID: 9775077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:43:06.962111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:19.933528
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
MORRISON, Judge.
We shall attempt to discuss the contentions raised in appellant’s able motion.
*661In addition to what we said originally concerning the propriety of permitting the district attorney to ask leading questions, we observe that the case before us is a near-perfect example of surprise. The prosecutrix admitted that she had talked to the district attorney a few minutes before she went on the stand and had told him about the different acts of intercourse she had had with appellant, and yet when she became a witness she answered the first incriminating question by saying, “I don’t want to testify.”
In Branch’s Ann. P. C., Sec. 158, we find: “If the witness is hostile, unwilling or reluctant, it is within the sound discretion of the trial court to permit leading questions on direct examination.”
Appellant next contends that the prosecutrix gave no testimony incriminating the appellant. With that we cannot agree.
We quote from the state’s examination of the prosecutrix:
“Q. Please state whether or not A. H. Petrey has had sexual relations with you. A. Yes, he has.
“Q.....Please tell the jury when the first time was that he had sexual intercourse with you. A. November, two years ago.
“Q . . . . where were you when this happened? A. At the house.
“Q.....Now, at those times and all of those times, did he or did he not put his private parts into you? A. Yes, he did.”
Appellant contends that his confession was inadmissible as a matter of law.
In Golemon v. State, 157 Tex. Cr. R. 534, 247 S. W. 2d 119, we said:
“The use in evidence against one charged with crime of a coerced or forced confession constitutes a denial of due process. ... In determining if a denial of due process has occurred in the particular mentioned, the Supreme Court of the United States arrives at a conclusion by an independent examination of and from the undisputed facts.”
In the case at bar, it is noted that the very able district at*662torney called as a witness in rebuttal each person mentioned by appellant in his testimony, and each witness contradicted the testimony of the appellant. The issue of the voluntary nature of the confession was properly submitted to the jury.
Appellant next complains of the action of the court in sustaining the state’s challenge to the prospective juror Lemke.
The court qualified the bill of exception to this matter by certifying that when the jury was complete the state had several peremptory challenges left.
Had the court not sustained the challenge, then certainly the state would have used a peremptory challenge on a man who had raised a defense fund for the accused.
Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this cause originally, the appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.