Court Opinion

ID: 9824971
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:49:51.932151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:55.352203
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
After a careful consideration of the testimony, we see no reason to change the conclusion reached in our original opinion, wherein it is stated:
“Por aught that appears from the record, there was but one act of carnal knowledge, and, it not clearly and positively appearing that there were two separate and different acts, the trial court will not be placed in error in refusing to exclude the testimony of Alberta Pranks, on the ground that the state 'had proven one act, and thereby elected to try the defendant for this particular act. As stated above the testimony does not so identify and particularize the facts and circumstances, as that they could not, and in fact did not, relate to but one and the same criminal act.”
[15, 16] No objection appears to have been made by the state to the defendant proving the general bad character of the girl, with whom it is alleged the defendant had carnal knowledge. The testimony of several witnesses offered by defendant tended to show that the girl was of general bad character, while two of the defendant’s witnesses testified, without objection, that the genera] character of the girl was good up to the time the defendant is alleged to have had carnal knowledge with her. Serious insistence is made that the trial court was in error in permitting the state to show in rebuttal that the general character of the girl was good up to the time the defendant is charged with having carnal knowledge with her. A sufficient answer would be that this was already in evidence out of the mouth of defendant’s witnesses, and again, defendant’s witness Andy Winsett having testified that her character' ivas bad, and that he had heard some things about her character before this trouble with George Bryan, defendant, it was permissible for the state to show in rebuttal that previous to this trouble with defendant her character was good.
The application for rehearing is overruled.