Bentley v. State
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | McMURRAY |
| Citation | Bentley v. State, 346 S.E.2d 98, 179 Ga.App. 287 (Ga. App. 1986) |
| Decision Date | 05 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 71942,71942 |
| Parties | BENTLEY v. The STATE. |
Drew Findling, Tucker, L. James Weil, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Joseph J. Drolet and Richard E. Hicks, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
The defendant was convicted of three counts of child molestation and one count of aggravated sodomy. The defendant's motion for new trial was denied and he now appeals. Held:
1. In his first enumeration of error, the defendant argues that the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict. We do not agree. "The child molestation statute (formerly Code Ann. § 26-2019, now OCGA § 16-6-4) is violated when a person 'does any immoral or indecent act to or in the presence of or with any child under the age of 14 years with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the person.' " McLamb v. State, 176 Ga.App. 727, 728 (2), 337 S.E.2d 360. OCGA § 16-6-2 (a). In the case sub judice, the evidence and all inferences therefrom demonstrated that the defendant exposed his penis on three separate occasions to three different female children under the age of 14 years. From these facts it can be inferred that the defendant committed the above described acts in order to satisfy his own sexual desires. Further, the evidence showed that the defendant forced a young child to place her mouth on his sex organ against her will. We find that this evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offenses of three counts of child molestation and one count of aggravated sodomy. McLamb v. State, 176 Ga.App. 727, 728 (2), 337 S.E.2d 360, supra; Brannon v. State, 176 Ga.App. 781, 782 (3), 337 S.E.2d 782. (The victim of the aggravated sodomy was also one of the victims of the above-described child molestation; however, the sodomy occurred at a different location and at a different time from the child molestation.)
2. In his second enumeration of error, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by charging the jury that if they could not reach a verdict it would result in a mistrial and the case would be tried again. "This charge was a correct...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Adams v. State
...clearly authorize a finding that appellant had done so with the intent to arouse his sexual desires. See generally Bentley v. State, 179 Ga.App. 287(1), 346 S.E.2d 98 (1986). The evidence likewise authorized a finding that the commission of the act of molestation was accomplished by the use......
-
Damare v. State
...and did not actually see the penis); Worley v. State, 193 Ga. App. 58, 60(3), 386 S.E.2d 879 (1989) (exposing penis); Bentley v. State, 179 Ga.App. 287(1), 346 S.E.2d 98 (1986) (same); see also Chapman v. State, 170 Ga.App. 779-780(1), 318 S.E.2d 213 (1984) (defining "immoral" and "indecent......
-
Hathcock v. State
...from the act of exposure that defendant did so with the intent to arouse or satisfy his sexual desires. See Bentley v. State, 179 Ga.App. 287(1), 346 S.E.2d 98 (1986); see also Worley, 193 Ga.App. at 60(3), 386 S.E.2d 879; Close v. State, 195 Ga.App. 652, 394 S.E.2d 563 (1990). We thus find......
-
Adcock v. State
...charge related only to the jury's consideration of the like act and to the mother's parentage and was not error. Bentley v. State, 179 Ga.App. 287, 288(2), 346 S.E.2d 98 (1986). 4. The fourth enumeration deals with the court's failure to charge defendant's request on mistake of fact, which ......