Court Opinion

ID: 9654103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:06:09.833769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:05.917473
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR, REHEARING
MORRISON, Judge.
We overrule the appellant’s contention that it was incumbent upon the state to prove the kind and character of drugs or medicine that were inserted into the womb of the prosecutrix. In Welch v. State, 159 Texas Cr. Rep. 352, 264 S.W. 2d 100, we discussed the inability of the grand jury to ascertain the chemical components of the fluid used to bring about the abortion. In our original opinion we pointed out that the appellant made no complaint as to the sufficiency of that portion of the indictment which charged the use of drugs and medicine.
The seeming inconsistency in the testimony of the prosecutrix may be explained by reference to the testimony of Dr. Dixon, who stated: “It is true that a woman can be pregnant and can continue to have the menstrual cycle for some period after conception. I have seen it continue for as long as six months following conception.” When viewed in the light of this medical testimony from the appellant’s witness, her account of the occurrence becomes plausible and understandable.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.