¶1On Rehearing
¶2The defendant-appellant, in his application for rehearing, suggests (and correctly so) that the writer overlooked the testimony of the prosecutrix that she had in fact made complaint to her stepmother. This she did about some three to four weeks before complaining to her grandmother.
¶3Such testimony, claims appellant, tends to show that the prosecutrix was not living in fear of her father’s alleged threat on her life if she disclosed the intercourse with him. However, even with this modification of the State’s case, essentially the issue was for the jury.
¶4On original delivery we stated:
“ … Perhaps, too, the relationship between the girl and her stepmother may have impressed the jury that complaining to the latter would have been futile: some women are loathe to lose the breadwinner at any cost.”
¶5We note that, for aught appearing; nothing came from the girl’s complaining' to her stepmother. Indeed, the stepmother denied hearing any complaint “out of any of these children about anything” between September or August, 1966, to May, 1967.
¶6With this extension and modification of the original opinion,'the application for rehearing is
¶7Overruled.