Collins v. State

80 S.W. 372, 46 Tex. Crim. 550, 1904 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 180
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 13, 1904
DocketNo. 2683.
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 80 S.W. 372 (Collins v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Collins v. State, 80 S.W. 372, 46 Tex. Crim. 550, 1904 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 180 (Tex. 1904).

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of adultery, by means of habitual sexual intercourse with Bertha Sanders. His paramour was used as a witness, and testified that she had had carnal intercourse with appellant at her father’s house in Williamson County four or five times, the first occasion being about the first of August; and again in about a week afterwards; and in about two weeks it was repeated. She further testified that these occurrences in all were four or five times, not less than four nor more than five; and that from the first to the last time a period of about ohe month elapsed; that she became pregnant as the result of these acts of intercourse. There is quite a lot of testimony, some of it tending to show that she may have become pregnant from some other source, as her menses ceased about two months before she states appellant had intercourse with her. She is corroborated by two facts: ■ first, her little brother stated he caught them in the very act of intercourse. This she denies, *551 and states that her brother could not have seen the act unless through the walls of the house. And the other fact was that her mother expostulated with her and defendant in regard to defendant calling on her so often at the house—he being a married man. We are of opinion that this evidence does not show the crime of adultery by habitual carnal intercourse. Hilton v. State, 41 Texas Crim. Rep., 190; Merritt v. Merritt v. State, 12 Texas Crim. App., 203. Because of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the conviction, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Krolozyk v. State
69 S.W.2d 83 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1934)
Krolczyk v. State
69 S.W.2d 83 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1934)
Ex Parte Rocha
30 F.2d 823 (S.D. Texas, 1929)
Hafley v. State
224 S.W. 1099 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1920)
Cordill v. State
201 S.W. 181 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1918)
Anderson v. State
193 S.W. 301 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1917)
Wallace v. State
141 S.W. 95 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
80 S.W. 372, 46 Tex. Crim. 550, 1904 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-state-texcrimapp-1904.