Rhem v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Rhem v. State

16 S.W. 338, 29 Tex. Ct. App. 509, 1891 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 28

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 27, 1891

DocketNo. 7286

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 S.W. 338 (Rhem v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rhem v. State, 16 S.W. 338, 29 Tex. Ct. App. 509, 1891 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 28 (Tex. Ct. App. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for rape. The appellant was given a term of five years in the penitentiary, and from this sentence he appeals to this court. It is unnecessary to notice any of the alleged errors urged against the conviction, because they are not well taken, except the assignment of error that calls in question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict of the jury.

We will not undertake to review the facts. After a careful inspection and examination of the statement of facts we are not willing that this conviction should stand. We do not think the evidence for the State makes out such a case for the crime of rape as authorizes the conviction. The testimony and conduct of the prosecutrix herself fails to [521]*521show the commission of the offense with that certainty and satisfaction that justifies an affirmance of this case, or sustains the verdict of the jury.

For want of sufficient evidence to support the conviction, the judgment is reversed- and cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Judges all present and concurring.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for rape. The appellant was given a term of five years in the penitentiary, and from this sentence he appeals to this court. It is unnecessary to notice any of the alleged errors urged against the conviction, because they are not well taken, except the assignment of error that calls in question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict of the jury.

We will not undertake to review the facts. After a careful inspection and examination of the statement of facts we are not willing that this conviction should stand. We do not think the evidence for the State makes out such a case for the crime of rape as authorizes the conviction. The testimony and conduct of the prosecutrix herself fails to [521]*521show the commission of the offense with that certainty and satisfaction that justifies an affirmance of this case, or sustains the verdict of the jury.

For want of sufficient evidence to support the conviction, the judgment is reversed- and cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Judges all present and concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 S.W. 338, 29 Tex. Ct. App. 509, 1891 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rhem-v-state-texapp-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack