Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

41 Tex. Crim. 501

55 S.W 491

Batchelor v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided February 14, 1900

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1900-02-14

The indictment charged appellant with the rape of one Laura Batchelor, on the 1st of March, 1899, the said Laura Batchelor being a female under the age of 15 years, etc. Appellant was the father of the alleged injured female. Ho further statement is required in view of the case as made on this appeal.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1900-02-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently September 1985

2 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

30190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

¶1 Appellant was convicted of rape upon Laura Batchelor, a female, being then and there under the age of 15 years, and not his wife, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of ninety-nine years. The testimony shows several acts of intercourse between the parties in Hood County, besides some prior acts in another county. When the testimony was all in, appellant moved the court to require the State to elect upon which act of intercourse it would rely for a conviction. This was overruled. This was erroneous. It is true, the court confined the jury in their deliberations to the acts in Hood County, but as stated, there were several of these occurring within the twelve months. Rape is not a continuous offense. Each act of intercourse constitutes a distinct offense. The question involved was thoroughly discussed in Lunn v. State, 44 Texas, 85, and was previously decided in Fisher v. State, 33 Texas, 792. The doctrine announced in these cases has been followed in this State without a variant opinion. Hpon another trial it would be better for the court to limit the effect of those acts not relied upon for conviction. For the error indicated, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

¶2 Reversed and remanded.

/41/texcrim/501 · .json · Public domain