TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Leach v. State

David W. Leach v. State

Leach v. State, 229 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 1950)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 10, 1950
Docket
No. 24759
Judges
Davidson
Citations
229 S.W.2d 809154 Tex. Crim. 5601950 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2154

Opinion of the Court — Davidson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for the offense of statutory rape — that is, carnal knowledge, with or without consent, of a female under the age of eighteen years and not the wife of the accused. The punishment assessed is five years in the penitentiary.

*561 We go direct to a discussion of the question decisive of this appeal.

Prosecutrix, sixteen years of age, testified to facts showing a case of rape by force on the part of appellant. She made an outcry to her mother, who had her examined by a physician. The physician “took some washings from the vagina and sent them to the laboratory.” The physician was permitted, over objection of the appellant, to testify that the “laboratory report on their findings showed some male sperm — in the washings from the vagina.”

It will be noted that the doctor testified as to the contents of the laboratory report, which was not in evidence.

The conclusion is expressed that the testimony was hearsay and subject to the objection leveled thereto. Inasmuch as the state made use of this hearsay testimony upon a controverted issue of fact, we cannot agree that its receipt in evidence should be held harmless.

We are unable to see the materiality of the testimony showing that appellant, while not a married man at the time of the alleged offense, had been married at one time, and suggest that in the event of another trial such testimony be not admitted.

The facts are amply sufficient to warrant the jury’s conclusion of guilt.

Other questions presented, especially those relating to the motion for continuance and argument of state’s counsel, will hardly arise upon another trial and are therefore not discussed.

For the receipt in evidence of the hearsay testimony mentioned, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1957: 11982: 119572026peak 1957 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Johnson v. State298 S.W.2d 132 (Tex. Crim. App. 1957)
  2. Wilhoit v. State638 S.W.2d 489 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982)

Most recent

  1. Wilhoit v. State638 S.W.2d 489 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982)
  2. Johnson v. State298 S.W.2d 132 (Tex. Crim. App. 1957)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list