Court Opinion

ID: 9654541
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:24:59.737145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:10.344512
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
BELCHER, Commissioner.
The appellant now insists that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction of burglary of a private residence at nighttime with intent to commit rape by force.
The evidence reveals that after entering the residence about 2 A.M., by force and without consent, the appellant removed all of his clothing, which he left in a vacant room, and then was seen nude going toward the room of a girl, age 17, where he was next seen and accosted as he stood beside the bed in which she was asleep, with his sex organ in his hand. When accosted, the appellant fled across the bed to a window but was pulled back, and a scuffle ensued, during which he freed himself several times but was finally restrained 'until the officers arrived. During the scuffle appellant identified himself as “Wess” or “West,” and he told the arresting officers his name was “Smith.”
The evidence of appellant’s unlawful entry into the residence followed by the indecent exposure of his body and his lustful handling of his person beside the girl’s bed when accosted, together with the other facts and circumstances, is sufficient to authorize the jury to find that the appellant entered the residence with the intent to commit rape and that he was only prevented from doing so by timely discovery.
The appellant further contends that the trial court erred in its charge by failing to require a finding of rape by the use of force.
The court in addition to defining the offense of burglary of a private residence at night instructed the jury that: “The charge in this case is the entry into a private residence at night, by force, with the intent to commit rape.” The court’s charge next defined the terms, private residence, entry, breaking, nighttime, and rape. The definition of rape, as given, was: “Rape is carnal knowledge of a female under the age of 18 years other than the wife of the person having such carnal knowledge, with or without her consent, and with or without the use of force, threats or fraud.”
The court, in submitting the case to the jury, among other findings, required the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant made a burglarious entry of a private residence with the intent to commit the crime of rape, before they could find him guilty.
There are no objections to the court’s charge and no requested charges, hence, no errors in the charge can be considered which are not fundamental. Art. 666, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.
A consideration of the charge as a whole in light of the facts and the general verdict of the jury, reveals no fundamental error.
The motion for hearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.