Bass v. State

• Decision Date: 21 December 1897
• Citation: 29 S.E. 966,103 Ga. 227
• Parties: BASS v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

29 S.E. 966

103 Ga. 227

BASS v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

December 21, 1897

Syllabus by the Court.

1. When, on a trial for fornication, there was evidence for the state tending to show that the accused and the other alleged guilty party were, on a designated occasion, in a position strongly indicating that the act charged in the indictment was being committed, it was competent for the state to supplement this evidence by proving lascivious conduct between these parties on a previous occasion, such proof being relevant as throwing light upon their relations towards each other, and as tending to illustrate the real nature of their conduct upon the occasion first above mentioned.

2. The state, in such case, having elected the occurrence which was the later in point of time as the one upon which it would really for a conviction, the court very properly instructed the jury that they could not convict the accused upon the evidence relating to the prior occurrence, but that this testimony was for their consideration, "simply to show the relations between the parties, and as a mere circumstance in the case in connection with other circumstances to be considered" by the jury.

3. Under the circumstances above recited, the evidence relating to the former occasion was certainly not rendered inadmissible merely because it had not been introduced before the grand jury.

4. Mere failure to charge upon the law relating to the impeachment of witnesses is not a cause for a new trial, when it appears that the attention of the court was not directed to this matter, and that no request to charge concerning it was made.

5. The evidence warranted the verdict, and there was no error in refusing to grant a new trial.

Error from city court of Floyd; G. A. H. Harris, Judge.

Loui Bass was convicted of fornication, and brings error. Affirmed.

McHenry & Nunnally, for plaintiff in error.

Moses Wright, Sol. Gen., and Hooper Alexander, for the State.

FISH J.

1. Where the state, in a trial for fornication, relies for a conviction upon proof showing that the accused, an unmarried man, and the other alleged guilty party, an unmarried woman were, at a certain time and a designated place, in a position relative to each other which, taken in connection with other proven circumstances, strongly indicated that the act of sexual intercourse was taking place between them, evidence of former lascivious familiarities between the same parties within a comparatively recent period, increases the probability that the offense charged was actually committed at such time and place. Proof of such lascivious conduct between the parties as that shown by the evidence objected to in the present case, in the very nature of things, and in accordance with observations of human conduct, shows a tendency or disposition in each party towards the commission of the sexual act with the other; it shows that modesty and self-respect-strong safeguards of virtue-had been previously broken down, and that the parties were already upon such terms of lascivious intimacy as to render it probable that given the opportunity, they would indulge in sexual intercourse with each other. Testimony of this character is peculiarly relevant where, as...