Court Opinion

ID: 9769954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:09:17.993657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:09.380404
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
GRAVES; Judge.
Appellant for the first time now urges that the trial court inadvertently in his charge changed the offense for which appellant was being tried from an assault with intent to commit rape to one for the crime of rape itself. He bases such contention on an isolated phrase found in the court’s charge wherein it is said by the court that “rape as charged in the indictment is the carnal knowledge of a female under eighteen years of age,” etc. An inspection of the whole charge convinces us of the propriety of such a charge.
The indictment charged an assault to rape. The charge so states. It then defines the meaning of an assault in its entirety; it then defines an aggravated assult; it then proceeds to define the term “rape” which is found in the indictment as well as in the charge; he then couples the assault and rape charge together and tells the jury that appellant is charged with making an assault with intent to commit rape upon this child; he sets out the elements of an assault and couples them with an intent to have carnal knowledge of this child; and unless the jury believed beyond a reasonable doubt that these elements were all present, then they should acquit the appellant. It was necessary that the term “rape” should be defined before the jury could find the thing to be submitted to them, and that was an assault-with intent to commit such crime of rape. We see no incongruity in such charge.
The motion for a rehearing will be overruled.