Jordan v. State

Appellant was convicted of an assault with the intent to commit rape, alleged to have been committed upon the person of Neulion Spann. He denied having made the assault, and, while the testimony upon this issue is in sharp and irreconcilable conflict, it is conceded that the testimony is legally sufficient to support the verdict.

Error is assigned in the admission and in the exclusion of certain testimony and in giving an instruction numbered 7, over appellant’s objection.

It is insisted that the court erred in permitting the prosecuting attorney to interrogate appellant on Ms…