Court Opinion

ID: 9943924
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 15:18:51.963372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:52:09.881007
License: Public Domain

The state insists that the use of the word 'ravish' in the indictment in connection with the allegation of carnal knowledge of the prosecutrix was sufficient to support a conviction for the offense of rape by force, and that we erred in holding that the unchastity of the prosecutrix was a defense in the case.
The word 'ravish' implies force and want of consent, and its use in the indictment in connection with the allegation of rape of a female between the ages of 15 and 18 years, as here, renders that indictment sufficient to support a conviction for rape by force as well as for statutory rape. Dyer v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 283 S.W. 820; Patton v. State, 105 Tex.Crim. R.,287 S.W. 51; France v. State, 148 Tex.Crim. R., 187 S.W.2d 80.
The word 'ravish' is not, however, descriptive of the offense, and it is therefore not necessary that force be proven in order to sustain a conviction under such indictment. Id.
The use of the word 'ravish' by no means precluded a conviction for statutory rape, under the indictment. A conviction could be had thereunder for either rape by force or for statutory rape. Dyer v. State, supra.
Where the indictment alleges statutory rape and the charge authorizes a conviction for that offense and the facts show that the prosecutrix was between the ages of 15 and 18 years, the previous unchastity of the prosecutrix may be shown as a defense.
We remain convinced of the correctness of our original holding.
The state's motion for rehearing is overruled.