Giles v. State

CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtBIRDSONG; DEEN, P. J., and WEBB
CitationGiles v. State, 239 S.E.2d 168, 143 Ga.App. 558 (Ga. App. 1977)
Decision Date29 September 1977
Docket NumberNo. 54385,No. 3,54385,3
PartiesBilly GILES v. The STATE

Robert M. Bearden, Jr., Macon, for appellant.

Walker P. Johnson, Jr., Dist. Atty., Charles H. Weston, Asst. Dist. Atty., Macon, for appellee.

BIRDSONG, Judge.

Appellant Giles was convicted of child molestation and sentenced to serve six years. He brings this appeal enumerating three errors. Held :

1. In his first enumeration of error, appellant urges that the state did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To the contrary, based upon the testimony of the child alone, we find that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the defendant was guilty of the crime of child molestation beyond reasonable doubt. Decker v. State, 139 Ga.App. 707, 229 S.E.2d 520 (1976); Page v. State, 120 Ga.App. 709(2), 172 S.E.2d 207 (1969); Ash v. State, 96 Ga.App. 359(2), 100 S.E.2d 149 (1957). This enumeration is without merit.

2. Appellant complains in the second enumeration of error that the trial court did not, sua sponte, charge the jury on the lesser included offenses of simple assault and simple battery. In regard to this enumeration, suffice it to say that appellant first of all denied the commission of any criminal misconduct and, secondly, did not request such instructions in writing. Under the evidence, appellant was either guilty as charged or not guilty at all. In view of his absolute denial of the commission of the crime and, in the absence of a written request for such instructions, the second rule of State v. Stonaker, 236 Ga. 1, 222 S.E.2d 354 (1976) declares the failure to give such charges to be without error. The Supreme Court further states that simple battery as defined in Chapter 26-13 of the Criminal Code of Georgia is not a lesser crime included in the crime of child molestation as defined in Chapter 26-20 (Sexual Offenses) of the Criminal Code of Georgia. It was not error for the trial judge to fail to charge the jury on the crime of simple battery. See also Van Voltenburg v. State, 138 Ga.App. 628, 631(3), 227 S.E.2d 451 (1976).

3. In the final enumeration of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based upon newly-discovered evidence. This evidence indicated that the child had told her father that the molestation did not occur, but did not amount to an actual recanting of the testimony by the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex
5 cases
  • Hayes v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • January 7, 1980
    ...conclude that a rational trier of fact could reasonably have found defendant guilty of the crime of child molestation. Giles v. State, 143 Ga.App. 558(1), 239 S.E.2d 168. B. Appellant's contention that venue was not properly established is also without merit. The evidence showed that the al......
  • Brooks v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • October 9, 1990
    ...Ga.App. 789, 790, 374 S.E.2d 359 (1988). See also Houston v. State, 189 Ga.App. 61, 63(3), 375 S.E.2d 239 (1988); Giles v. State, 143 Ga.App. 558(2), 239 S.E.2d 168 (1977). While recognizing the existence of this confusion, we nevertheless need not use the instant case as the vehicle for re......
  • Samples v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • January 31, 1984
    ...evidence authorized the guilty verdicts. See generally Quong v. State, 157 Ga.App. 532(1), 278 S.E.2d 122 (1981); Giles v. State, 143 Ga.App. 558(1), 239 S.E.2d 168 (1977). 2. Appellant filed a motion in limine to prohibit the introduction of testimony concerning his commission of other act......
  • McLamb v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • October 3, 1985
    ...trier of fact to have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of child molestation. Giles v. State, 143 Ga.App. 558(1), 239 S.E.2d 168; Henry v. State, 154 Ga.App. 120, 267 S.E.2d 3. In his final enumeration of error, defendant contends the trial court erred in r......
  • Get Started for Free