The following statement taken from the brief of the State’s counsel is substantially correct: “The State’s testimony shows that on May 11, 1905, prosecutrix, aged 10 years, was going to market, and while passing the repair shop of appellant was called by him, and went in to see what he wanted, and when she got to the door he grabbed her, and carried her inside the shop, shut the door, put her on a bed, and made an attempt to penetrate her person.
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently February 1975
5 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
¶1
Appellant was convicted of an assault with intent to rape, and his punishment assessed at two years confinement in the penitentiary; hence this appeal. The indictment properly charged an assault on a female under the age of 15 years, by the use of force. See the subject discussed in Croomes v. State, 40 Texas Crim. Rep., 672, particularly on motion for rehearing.
¶2
There was no necessity for the court to charge on alibi. As we understand the testimonjq appellant admitted his presence with the girl alleged to have been raped. It does not occur to us that the court was required to charge on aggravated assault. The testimony of prosecutrix shows that the unquestioned purpose of appellant was to have carnal intercourse with her, and that his efforts were directed to accomplish that purpose. He denies that he made the attempt at all. The evidence did not require the court to charge on impotency.
¶3
Appellant criticises the charge of the court in other respects, and also the verdict of the jury, but we do not deem it necessary to discuss said criticisms, as they appear to be of a frivolous character. There being no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
