
    ANTHONY v. STATE.
    No. 13491.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 18, 1930.
    W. H. Blanton, of Eloresville, and Simmons & Dotson, and S. J. Dotson, all of San Antonio, for appellant.
    Lamar Seeligson, Dist. Atty., Bernard La-don, Asst. Dist. Atty., and Delos Pinch, Asst. Dist. Attjr., all of San Antonio, and A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   CHRISTIAN, J.

The offense is rape; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for ten years.

It appears from 'the testimony of prosecu- trix, Fannie B. Petty, that appellant had . several acts of sexual intercourse with her; ; that she was under fourteen years of age ' , at the time such relations were had; that ’ she consented to said acts of intercourse; that thereafter she and appellant went to the state of Oklahoma, where they were mar- ‘ ried; that upon their return to Texas ap- : pellant secured work; that- appellant supported her and ■ treated her kindly until he was arrested and charged with the offense of rape. Appellant offered no testimony. | > ;

Over proper objection the state was permitted to prove by the mother of prosecutrix that J. C. Anthony, brother of appellant, had stated to the witness, in the absence of appellant, in substance, that appellant ought1 to be ashamed of himself, and that, if prosecu-trix were his daughter, he would want appellant punished. The effect of this testimony was to get 'before the jury the opinion of appellant’s brother that appellant was guilty. Opinions expressed in the absence of the accused to the injured party or others as to the guilt of the accused are hearsay and inadmissible. Branch’s Annotated Penal Code, § 133; Langford v. State, 9 Tex. App. 287; Jackson v. State, 20 Tex. App. 193; Thompson v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 142, 57 S. W. 805; Woodward v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 203, 58 S. W. 135; Morgan v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. R. 122, 136 S. W. 1065; Hickey v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. R. 568, 138 S. W. 1051, 1059; Streight v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. R. 453, 138 S. W. 748.

Eor the error discussed, the judgment is ■reversed and the cause remanded

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.  