Stevens v. State, 23698
| Decision Date | 10 October 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 23698,23698 |
| Citation | 222 Ga. 603,151 S.E.2d 127 |
| Parties | Freddy Lee STEVENS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Admission of the appellant's incriminatory statement was not error.
2. Refusal to direct a verdict of not guilty was not error.
3. There was corroboration of the victim's testimony that she had been raped.
4. The evidence authorized the verdict of guilty.
John N. Crudup, Gainesville, for appellant.
Jeff C. Wayne, Sol. Gen., Frank Strickland, Jr., Gainesville, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., G. Ernest Tidwell, Exec. Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles B. Merrill, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.
Following his conviction for rape Freddy Lee Stevens enumerated as error here the admission in evidence of his incriminating statement, the refusal to direct a verdict of acquittal for lack of venue, and the denial of his motion for new trial. He and two others were jointly indicted for such offense, and he was tried separately in the Superior Court of Hall County, found guilty and sentenced to five years imprisonment.
1. We find no merit in the appellant's contention that since he was only 18 years of age and without legal counsel, the admission of his incriminating statement violated his right to counsel as guaranteed by the State and Federal Constitutions. The evidence is undisputed that he was first fully advised of this right to counsel and that he waived it. A member of the Gainesville Police Department testified that when the appellant came in to surrender himself, he and that the appellant made the statement freely and voluntarily. The statement itself recites that the appellant was advised of his right to the advice of counsel before making any statement, and that 'I hereby expressly waive my rights to advice of counsel * * *.'
There was no evidence that the appellant was not of average intelligence and experience for an 18 year old.
2. The refusal to direct a verdict of not guilty on the ground of lack of venue was not erroneous. The rule is: 'It is not error in a criminal case to refuse to direct a verdict of not guilty.' Baugh v. State, 211 Ga. 863(1) 89 S.E.2d 504.
3. There is division among this court now, as there has been in the past, as to the necessity of corroboration of the testimony of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooks v. State
...we firmly conclude that the state has carried its burden. See Hurt v. State, 239 Ga. 665, 669, 238 S.E.2d 542 (1977); Stevens v. State, 222 Ga. 603, 151 S.E.2d 127 (1966). See generally West v. U. S., 399 F.2d 467, 469 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. den., 393 U.S. 1102, 89 S.Ct. 903, 21 L.Ed.2d 795......
-
Ford v. State, 26229
...were placed at the scene of the crime, at the time it was committed, by a witness. The immediate complaint to the police, Stevens v. State, 222 Ga. 603, 151 S.E.2d 127; the hysteria of the victim, Harper v. State, 201 Ga. 10, 39 S.E.2d 45; the condition of her clothing; Hamilton v. State, 1......
-
Mitchell v. State, 25382
...court as to the necessity of corroboration of the victim's testimony (See Jones v. State, 222 Ga. 601, 150 S.E.2d 924; Stevens v. State, 222 Ga. 603, 151 S.E.2d 127, yet under no decision of this Court or any statutory enactment has there been any requirement that such corroboration consist......