Court Opinion

ID: 9683920
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:40:28.619257+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:51.330446
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING.
BEAUCHAMP, Judge.
Appellant has filed a very ingenious argument presenting his contention that this court erred in holding that the offense of assault with intent to rape is an offense against morals, decency and chastity. The argument is based on the fact that in the codification of the laws, 1925, we have a title to a class of offenses which is designated as “Offenses Against Morals, Decency and Chastity,” (this is Title No. 10 embracing Articles 490 to 524 of the Penal Code) ; and that in these articles there is no definition of the offense of assault to rape. The offense for which appellant was convicted is defined in a chapter under Title 15, being Article 1162 P. C.
The name of a title is merely a convenience for the purpose of classifying a number of offenses which the codifiers selected.
It has no force and effect whatsoever to exclude from that classification any offense other than those placed within it. Several of the offenses so classified and described under Title 10 are also offenses against the person and might well have been placed under Title 15. Murder is placed under the title of Homicide. It is also an offense against the person, but it is not found under that title. So are many offenses within more than one title. The offense of assault to rape, while primarily an of*532fense against the person, is also an offense against morals, decency and chastity.
We think the original opinion sufficiently discusses the case and appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.