Lynn v. State, 28454
| Decision Date | 07 January 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 28454,28454 |
| Citation | 203 S.E.2d 221,231 Ga. 559 |
| Parties | William Ronald LYNN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Jay William Fitt, Columbus, for appellant.
E. Mullins Whisnant, Dist. Atty., Columbus, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Courtney Wilder Stanton, Michael W. Dyer, Deputy Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The appellant was convicted of rape, two counts of burglary, false imprisonment, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and criminal trespass. He appeals. Held:
1. Enumeration of error number one presents the question of whether the victim of an alleged rape may be cross examined as to specific acts of prior sexual intercourse with men other than the defendant. 'No question of evidence has been more controverted.' I Wigmore on Evidence (3rd Ed.) p. 682, § 200. In recent years this court has divided on this issue. See Andrews v. State, 196 Ga. 84, 98, 26 S.E.2d 263; Teague v. State, 208 Ga. 459, 464, 67 S.E.2d 467; Frady v. State, 212 Ga. 84(2), 90 S.E.2d 664. The opposing views are fully set forth in these cases as well as many textbooks and no purpose would be served in reiterating them here. It is sufficient to state that we adopt the majority rule that such evidence is inadmissible for either impeachment purposes or on the issue of consent. As said in Wigmore, supra, 'In the United States, the law in the various jurisdictions is not uniform; but the exclusionary rule prevails in some form, in the greater number of jurisdictions.' 3 Underhill's Criminal Evidence (5th Ed.), p. 1766, § 766 states: Indeed, it is our opinion that this is the settled law of Georgia as established by the unanimous cases cited in the majority opinion of Andrews v. State, 196 Ga. 84, 26 S.E.2d 263, supra. See also 65 Am.Jur.2d 810, § 83. The victim in the instant case testified she never had any sexual relations with the defendant.
2. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial 'following the appellee's offering of evidence regarding a polygraph examination administered on the person of the victim to the alleged rape.' The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mandel
...prejudicial (see People v. Blackburn, 56 Cal.App.3d 685, 128 Cal.Rptr. 864; State v. Geer, 13 Wash.App. 71, 533 P.2d 389; Lynn v. State, 231 Ga. 559, 203 S.E.2d 221). CPL 60.42 serves the salutary purpose of restricting the unfair and irrelevant cross-examination of the victims of sexual cr......
-
Decker v. State
...See Deen v. State, 216 Ga. 387, 388(3), 116 S.E.2d 595. See also Price v. State, 233 Ga. 332(5), 211 S.E.2d 290; Lynn v. State, 231 Ga. 559(1), 203 S.E.2d 221. The court did not abuse its discretion in limiting defendant's cross examination on this 3. In two enumerations defendant claims th......
-
Jones v. Goodwin
...consensual sexual activities with certain individuals in no way imply consent to similar activities with others. Lynn v. State, 231 Ga. 559, 203 S.E.2d 221, 222 (1974) (" 'consent in the case of one man does not imply consent in the case of another.' " (quoting 3 Underhill's Criminal Eviden......
-
State v. Kelso-Christy
...on one occasion is not substantial evidence that she consented on another, but in fact may indicate the contrary."); Lynn v. State , 231 Ga. 559, 203 S.E.2d 221, 222 (1974) ("(The) more satisfactory reason (for the rule) is that her consent in the case of one man does not imply consent in t......