
    (86 Tex. Cr. R. 439)
    LUCAS v. STATE.
    
      (No. 5476.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 5, 1919.
    On Motion for Rehearing, Dec. 17, 1919.)
    1. Criminal law <⅜=>1120(4) — Sufficiency OF BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.
    A bill of exceptions, complaining that pros-ecutrix in statutory rape case was allowed to answer questions as to the relations between herself and defendant at a previous time, held, insufficient to present the complaint that the state was allowed to introduce evidence of criminal acts barred by limitations not showing what was the answer of the prosecutrix.
    2. Criminal law <®=a507(7) — Prosecutrix in STATUTORY RAPE NOT ACCOMPLICE.
    Prosecutrix in statutory rape case is not an accomplice, so conviction may be had on her uncorroborated testimony.
    Appeal froni District Court, Galveston County; H. C. Hughes, Judge.
    J. C. Lucas was convicted of statutory rape, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    See, also,- 215 S. W. 299.
    John T. Wheeler, of Galveston, for appellant.
   LATTIMORE, J.

In the above case, the appellant was convicted of statutory rape upon a female under the age of 15 years, in the district court of Galveston county, Tex., and his punishment was fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of 25 years.

There appears to be only one bill of exceptions in the record, which is as follows:

. “Be it remembered that on the trial of the above-entitled cause, the state offered to prove a series of acts of sexual intercourse between the defendant, J. C. -Lucas, and the prosecu-trix, antedating, prior to, and beyond the period of limitation of the act alleged to have been committed on the date set forth in the indictment, indicating their intention by the following question, directed to Elsie Allen Nelson, the prose-cutrix, who was a witness on the stand at the time: ‘On or about the 19th day of November, 1918, or within a year prior thereto, tell the jury what were the relations between you and the defendant, J. C. Lucas.’ To which counsel for the defendant, J. C. Lucas, objected and continued to renew his objections each time such evidence was sought to be introduced as appears from the statement of the statement of facts, assigning as the grounds for his objections the following reasons that the matter sought to be introduced was not at a date mentioned in the indictment; That it was an attempt to prove a separate, independent, and distinct offense from the one on trial; that it was no part of the res gestae; no part of any system shown to have been used by the defendant; nor was it an attempt to identify him, but that it was an attempt to prejudice him before the jury by showing a course of events which would necessarily have the effect of injuring his reputation before the jury, and the court overruled said objections, to which the defendant, through his counsel, excepted to said ruling and herewith tenders his bill of exceptions, and asks that the same be signed and made a part of the record in said cause, which is accordingly done.”

It'is manifest that this bill is not sufficient. There is no statement therein of what the witness testified in answer to the questions set forth. The question is not objectionable on its face, and, in the absence of a showing in the bill itself that a witness gave an objectionable answer, the bill will not be considered.

The motion for a new trial complains of the insufficiency of the evidence to corroborate the prosecutrix, the ground of said complaint being that she is an accomplice and not corroborated. The prosecutrix testified fully to facts showing the guilt of accused, and under numerous holdings of this court is not an accomplice. Hamilton v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 372, 37 S. W. 431; Donley v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. R. 428, 71 S. W. 959.

No complaint is made to us of the charge of the court, nor of any matter with regard to the introduction of evidence, except as above stated.

There being no error in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

The appellant has filed a formal motion for rehearing, without citation of authorities, or reasons stated why same should be granted.

We are unable to find error in the original opinion of this court, and the motion for rehearing is overruled. 
      <Ss»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     