# Lopez v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · April 16, 1952 · 158 Tex. Crim. 16

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9765335

## Case

- **Full name:** Jesus Lopez v. State
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** April 16, 1952
- **Citations:** 158 Tex. Crim. 16; 252 S.W.2d 701; 1952 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1327
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Graves
- **Judges:** Morrison, Graves
- **Cited by:** 29 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9765335

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding no error in refusal to grant a motion to require the district attorney to allow the defendant to copy and inspect his confession and other evidence prior to trial noting, “[i]t has been the consistent holding of this Court, through the years, that such evidence, prior …
- stating that a “grand jury proceeding is not one in which the accused has the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him”

## Opinion text

ON appellant’s motion for rehearing.
GRAVES, Presiding Judge.
Appellant has filed a lengthy motion, approximately fifty pages, asking for a rehearing herein and he seems to be dissatisfied with our disposition of every proposition offered as set forth in the original opinion.
We have again carefully read the statement of facts and the motion for rehearing herein and have again convinced ourselves of the correctness of our holding in the original opinion.
The testimony clearly shows that appellant had debauched the complaining witness. It also shows that he had often promised her marriage. It seems the only difference between his testimony and that of the prosecutrix is as to when the promise was made. The jury, after proper instruction, found the promise to have been made at a time prior to the seduction, otherwise they would not have convicted him; the court having instructed them on this matter carefully. This involved and difficult case was tried by a learned and prudent judge and we think correctly so.
We adhere to our opinion disposing of all problems presented and the motion for rehearing will be overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9765335. Public record. Not legal advice.