Latimer v. State
| Decision Date | 16 September 1939 |
| Docket Number | 12915. |
| Parties | LATIMER v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The defendant being on trial for the alleged offense of rape of a girl nine years of age, the court did not err in refusing to permit his attorney to interrogate the female as to a claimed particular instance of unchastity with another man.
2. The charge to the jury on circumstantial evidence, if erroneous, was not harmful to the accused.
3. In view of the entire charge, the excerpt complained of, as failing to inform the jury that the requisite mental conviction as to the defendant's guilt must be based upon evidence, was not cause for a new trial.
4. The evidence did not demand a charge on the defense of alibi.
5. The evidence authorized the verdict. The court did not err in refusing a new trial.
A Felton Jenkins, of Madison, and Park & Park, of Greensboro, for plaintiff in error.
C S. Baldwin, Jr., Sol. Gen., of Madison, Ellis G. Arnall, Atty. Gen., E. J. Clower, Asst. Atty. Gen., and C. E. Gregory, Jr., of Decatur, for the State.
The defendant, a man twenty-two years of age, was convicted of the offense of rape upon a nine-year girl. He was recommended to the mercy of the court, and sentenced to ten years in the penitentiary. His motion for a new trial was overruled, and he excepted.
1. The court refused to permit the defendant's attorney to ask the girl, on cross-examination, whether on a previous occasion she had tried to get another man, or boy, named, 'to have such relationship with her.' The disallowance of the question is assigned as error in the first special ground of the motion for new trial. The witness had testified that the defendant did 'something terrible' to her, but she did not know what it was. It is contended that the question was permissible for the purpose of impeaching the girl's statement as to knowledge of such a matter, and as bearing upon her credibility. The court did not err in the ruling stated. The witness described acts of the defendant, which, if done, constituted the offense of rape. If the sexual act was in fact committed, the offense was rape, regardless of the girl's knowledge or experience, and regardless of consent, she being, because of her age, incapable of consenting. Ga.L.1918, 259, Code, §§ 26-1303, 26-1304; Gosha v. State, 56 Ga. 36; Echols v. State, 153 Ga. 857, 113 S.E. 170; Holland v. State, 161 Ga. 492, 131 S.E. 503. Accordingly, the mere question of consent was immaterial. Whether or not in such a case the chastity of the female could become material in relation to her credibility, the proposed interrogation was not admissible even upon this theory, the law being that on a trial for rape the female cannot be impeached by examination as to particular instances of unchastity. Black v. State, 119 Ga. 746, 47 S.E. 370; Wheeler v. State, 148 Ga. 508, 97 S.E. 408; Towns v. State, 149 Ga. 613(3), 101 S.E. 678; Walker v. State, 151 Ga. 341(2), 106 S.E. 547; Smiley v. State, 156 Ga. 60(3), 118 S.E. 713; Byrd v. State, 187 Ga. 328, 329(5), 200 S.E. 671. In what has just been said, however, no ruling is intended as to whether evidence of general reputation for unchastity would be admissible as affecting the credibility of one of such age. See Seals v. State, 114 Ga. 518, 40 S.E. 731, 88 Am.St.Rep. 33.
2. In the second special ground error was assigned upon a charge relating to circumstantial evidence, the contention being that direct evidence only was introduced. There is no merit in this ground. Some evidence, it seems, was circumstantial in nature; but even if not, the charge 'was not injurious to the accused, as it gave a rule more favorable than he could claim.' Smith v. State, 140 Ga. 791, 79 S.E. 1127; Middleton v. State, 7 Ga.App. 1, 66 S.E. 22. The statement to the contrary in Bivins v. State, 5 Ga.App. 434, 63 S.E. 523, was obiter.
3. In the third special ground, the movant complained of a charge to the effect that if the jury believed beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense alleged in the indictment, it would be their duty to convict him; the error assigned being that this charge omitted all reference to evidence, and failed to state that if the jury believed the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence in the case, it would be their duty to convict him. From the charge as a whole it was clear that any belief as to guilt must be based upon evidence, and the jury could not have been misled into convicting the defendant upon something outside. See Sumner v. State, 109 Ga. 142(2), 34 S.E. 293; Smith v. State, 52...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rucker v. State
...case, inasmuch as such an instruction would ' "g(i)ve [the defendant] a rule more favorable than he could claim." ' Latimer v. State, 188 Ga. 775, 777, 4 S.E.2d 631 (1939), quoting Smith v. State, 140 Ga. 791, 79 S.E. 1127 (1913); Nestor v. State, 122 Ga.App. 290, 291, 176 S.E.2d 637 (1970)......
-
Barnes v. State
...case, inasmuch as such an instruction would " 'g[i]ve [the defendant] a rule more favorable than he could claim.' " Latimer v. State, 188 Ga. 775, 777, 4 S.E.2d 631 (1939), quoting Smith v. State, 140 Ga. 791, 79 S.E. 1127 (1913); Nestor v. State, 122 Ga.App. 290, 291, 176 S.E.2d 637 (1970)......
-
Teague v. State
...intercourse and said the female consented. This rule was again stated in Smiley v. State, 156 Ga. 60(3), 118 S.E. 713; Latimer v. State, 188 Ga. 775(1), 4 S.E.2d 631; Andrews v. State, 196 Ga. 84(5), 26 S.E.2d It is clear that this court has adopted the foregoing rule, and follows the weigh......
-
State v. Goguen
...other acts of intercourse by such female. Whether or not any evidence would have been admissible for that purpose (see Latimer v. State, 188 Ga. 775, 4 S.E.2d 631), the testimony which the defendant sought to elicit would not have tended to establish the contention made. Nor did the court e......