Joiner v. State
| Decision Date | 17 November 1909 |
| Citation | 66 S.E. 251,133 Ga. 433 |
| Parties | JOINER. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Where the charge of the court, upon the trial of one indicted for rape, does not submit to the jury the question whether the female upon whom the offense is alleged to have been committed was capable of consenting to the act of sexual intercourse, but all the instructions of the court upon the question of her consent or nonconsent to such an act are apparently based upon the assumption that she was legally capable of consenting, there is nothing in the motion for a new trial, or the record accompanying the same, which shows that the state contended that the female in question was incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse because she had not arrived at the age of puberty, a ground of such motion assigning error upon the failure of the court to instruct the jury that the burden was upon the state to show that the female alleged to have been raped had not reached the age of puberty is clearly without merit.
[Eld. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 814.*]
A point not raised by any assignment of
error in the motion for a new trial, though
argued in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in
error, cannot be considered. [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal
Law, Cent. Dig. § 2676; Dec. Dig. § 1064.*]
3i Sufficiency of Evidence.
The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Emanuel County; B. T. Rawlings, Judge.
Judson Joiner was convicted of rape, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Saffold & Larson and J. M. Slaton, for plaintiff in error.
Alfred Herrington, Sol. Gen., Hines & Jordan, and Jno. C. Hart, Atty. Gen., for the State.
FISH, C. J. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
*.For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, ft Reporter Indexes
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Drake v. State
...age is legally incapable of giving consent. This rule has been recognized, for example, in these fairly typical cases: Joiner v. State, 133 Ga. 433, 66 S.E. 251 (1909); Jones v. State, 106 Ga. 365, 34 S.E. 174 (1899); Stephen v. State, 11 Ga. 225, 238 (1851); Morrow v. State, 13 Ga.App. 189......
- Stallings v. State, 37856
-
Fox v. State.*
...here, and therefore that the ques tion propounded by the Court of Appeals must be answered in the negative. See, also, Joiner v. State, 133 Ga. 433, 66 S. E. 251 (2); Hall v. State, 121 Ga. 141, 48 S. E. 903; Mayor, etc., of Griffin v. Johnson, 84 Ga. 279, 10 S. E. 719 (6). All the Justices......
-
Fox v. State
...here, and therefore that the question propounded by the Court of Appeals must be answered in the negative. See, also, Joiner v. State, 133 Ga. 433, 66 S.E. 251 (2); Hall v. State, 121 Ga. 141, 48 S.E. 903; Mayor, etc., of Griffin v. Johnson, 84 Ga. 279, 10 S.E. 719 (6). All the Justices con......