Manning v. State
J.C. Manning v. State.
Headnotes
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
HENDERSON, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of rape, and his punishment assessed at fifteen years confinement in the penitentiary.
The indictment charges the rape to have been committed upon one Ivy Benton; she being at the time under the age of fifteen years, and not the wife of appellant. The State offered testimony tending to show sexual intercourse by appellant with prosecutrix in Potter County and in New Mexico. Appellant objected to this on the ground thata the same was another and distinct offense, and had no bearing as to the offense committed in Baylor County. While it is true appellant could have been prosecuted for the offense committed in Potter County, as for a distinct offense, still this of itself would not render the evidence inadmissible. The transaction was between the same parties, and would tend to show an intimacy and familiarity between them, which, with other circumstances, would tend to show the guilt of appellant as to the transaction charged against him in the indictment. Hamilton v. State, 36 Texas Crim. Rep., 372 .
The court did not err in excluding testimony showing that the mother of prosecutrix was keeping a whorehouse in Seymour at the time of the alleged offense. We fail to see how this would have any bearing as to the guilt or innocence of appellant.
Appellant contends the court should have given his special requested instructions with reference to his want of knowledge that prosecutrix was under the age of consent, and, if he exercised reasonable care to ascertain her age, he would not be guilty. The doctrine of mistake of fact or honest belief has no application to this character of offense. Edens v. State, 43 S. W. Rep., 89 ; Bish. St. Crimes, sec. 490; Bish. Crim. Law, secs. 301, 303a, 310; Lawrence v. Commonwealth, 30 Grat., 845; State v. Newton, 44 Iowa, 45 .
The court properly instructed the jury they could not convict appel *304 lant of offenses committed in other counties. We have carefully examined the charge of the court, and, in our opinion, it is a correct enunciation of the law. Finding no error in the record, the judgment is-affirmed.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.