Jenkins v. State

Citations

• 1 Tex. Ct. App. 346

Syllabus

<p>1. Rape—Oharoe to the Jury.—On a trial for rape, the court below admitted evidence impeaching the character for chastity of the female injured, and instructed the jury that they might consider such evidence in determining the weight and credibility of her testimony in reference to the commission of the offense by the accused. Held, that the instruction was objectionable, because it failed to explain that such evidence was only competent for the purpose of raising the presumption that the woman yielded her consent, and was not forced; but that this error in the charge inured to the benefit of the accused, and, therefore, he is not entitled to a reversal of the judgment on account of it.</p> <p>2. Same.—In the trial for a rape by force, wherein it was incumbent on the jury to determine whether the force was of the kind and degree defined by the statute (Paso. Dig., Art. 2185), the court below, whether asked or not, should have given to the jury proper instructions for their guidance in determining that question; and the omission to give such instruction was error, requiring the reversal of the judgment of conviction.</p> <p>8. Evidence.—In a prosecution for a rape by force, something more must be shown than a mere want of the female’s consent; there must have been resistance upon her part, dependent in amount on the circumstances surrounding her at the time, and on the relative strength of herself and the accused.</p>