Holst v. State

Citations

• 23 Tex. Ct. App. 1
• 3 S.W. 757
• 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 26

Syllabus

<p>1. Rape—Evidence.—In this State the common law rule in rape cases obtains, that neither the particulars of the injured female’s complaint nor the name of the person she mentioned as the offender can be proved as original evidence, though they may be brought out by the defendant, if he chooses, upon cross examination. Under this rule the trial court erred in permitting the State to prove the particulars of the complaint made by the prosecutrix and the name she gave as that of the person who assaulted her,</p> <p>2. Practice—Qualifications of a Witness,—Article 730 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides as follows: “ Children or other persons who, after being examined by the court, appear not to possess sufficient intelligence to relate transactions with respect to which they are interrogated, or who do not understand the obligation of an oath, are incompetent witnesses.” See the opinion in extenso for circumstances under which it is held that the prosecuting witness was incompetent to testify, because, even if intelligent enough to relate the transaction, she was not sufficiently intelligent to understand the obligation of an oath.</p>