Court Opinion

ID: 9642993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:14:35.042851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:55.939231
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.
■ The appellant challenges our holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to permit him upon cross-examination to prove that the prosecutrix had had sexual intercourse prior to the day in question.
In Ross v. State, 60 Tex.Cr.R. 547, 132 S.W. 793, at p. 797, this Court said:
“ * * * If the surroundings and physical facts of the assault or the conduct of the parties previous thereto were of such a character as that the question of consent is suggested, then in this character of case proof of general reputation for chastity would be admissible. But when every fact, when the conduct of the parties is before the jury, and everything excludes the idea of consent, it would be idle to attempt to rebut them simply by proof of a want of chastity. Such testimony could only become material where there is some question as to the consent of the prosecutrix. * ⅜ * In this case the evidence excludes the idea, as there is no question as to the force used and the want of consent.”
See also Fite v. State, 139 Tex.Cr.R. 592, 140 S.W.2d 848; Jones v. State, 119 Tex.Cr.R. 525, 46 S.W.2d 308.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.