Raiford v. The State Of Ga.

• Decision Date: 28 February 1882
• Citation: Raiford v. The State Of Ga., 68 Ga. 672 (Ga. 1882)
• Parties: Raiford. vs. The State of Georgia.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

68 Ga. 672

Raiford. vs. The State of Georgia.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

FEBRUARY TERM, 1882.

Verdict. Witness. Criminal Law. Before Judge Carswell. Jefferson Superior Court. November Adjourned Term, 1881.

Reported in the decision.

H. D. D. TWIGGS, for plaintiff in error.

R. L. Gamble, solicitor general, for the state.

Crawford, Justice.

The plaintiff in error was indicted for incestuous fornication with one Kate C. Griffin, his niece, was found guilty, moved for a new trial, which was refused, and that refusal is complained of as error.

There were several grounds in the motion for new trial, but a decision upon two of them will rule the case, and they are:

(1.) That Kate C. Griffin being an accomplice, and the only witness for the state who testified to the criminal act, is uncorroborated by other evidence.

(2.) That the evidence makes out a case of rape, and not incestuous fornication.

1.Was there, then, sufficient testimony in corroboration of that which was sworn to by the unfortunate young woman to authorize the verdict?

It is shown by the evidence that the household consisted of the grandmother, the defendant, and this niece; that her mother had been dead thirteen years, during which time she had lived in the house with the defendant; that about three weeks before the birth of her child, she had been sent off under pretence of attending school, when her condition must have been known to him; that Scott Parsons, a servant, who, to use his own language, had "lived off and on " with the defendant for seven years, had seen him in her room, on the bed with her, and with her clothes up above her waist; that he saw this more than nine months preceding the birth of her child.

There was no attempt made to impeach this witness or controvert his testimony; taken, therefore, in connection with the testimony which she had given to the jury, it would have been strange indeed, if they had not been satisfied of the truth of the charge when so corroborated.

2.The next question to be considered is, whether the evidence makes out a case of rape, instead of incestuous fornication?

The testimony of the young woman was that the defendant had sought to have criminal connection with her all through the year preceding that in which she had her child; he commenced by feeling her breasts, and then by promises of presents; he told her that being her uncle it made no difference; he attempted to have intercourse with her on several occasions, sometimes he would...