Studdard v. State, 27214.

• Decision Date: 19 January 1939
• Docket Number: No. 27214.,27214.
• Citation: 200 S.E. 816,59 Ga.App. 347
• Parties: STUDDARD. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

59 Ga.App. 347

200 S.E. 816

STUDDARD.

v.STATE.

No. 27214.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

Jan. 19, 1939.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. If the jury found that the defendant made love to a virtuous, unmarried woman, wooed her, made honorable proposals of marriage and had them accepted, and after a solemn promise of marriage, which the woman believed to be in good faith, she barkened to the voice of love and yielded to her lover because she trusted him and he made successful use of that engagement to accomplish the ruin of a virtuous and confiding woman, the jury would be authorized to convict for seduction.

2. However, if the jury had found that the consent to the criminal intercourse was a part of the original betrothal; that it was procured solely by the undertaking to marry; and that the transaction amounted to a mere coarse and lustful traffic, the defendant should not have been convicted.

3. The evidence in the instant case brings it under the rule stated in headnote one, supra, and the verdict of the jury was authorized.

4. Where the court, in its charge to the jury, defined seduction in the language of Code, § 26-6001, as follows: "If any person shall, by persuasion and promises of marriage or other false and fraudulent means, seduce a virtuous unmarried female and induce her to yield to his lustful embraces and allow him to have carnal knowledge of her, he shall be punished by imprisonment and labor in the penitentiary for not less than two nor longer than twenty years." and where the court, in subsequently instructing the jury, did not specifically retract or explain anything contained in the above instruction, yet its instructions were in effect that the State relied for conviction upon proof of persuasion and promises of marriage, the court did not commit reversible error.

5. In special ground 6, the defendant complains of the following excerpt from the charge: "So take the case, gentlemen, and apply the rules which I have given you to the evidence in the case, and if you believe that this defendant is guilty of the offense of seduction as charged, that by promises of marriage and other persuasion, he induced her to yield fraudulently as I have explained it to you, if you believe that beyond a reasonable doubt then you would be authorized in convicting him * * *." The defendant's objection to this part of the charge is that the bill of indictment charged "seduction by persuasion and promises of marriage and nowhere alleges that the same was fraudulently, but the court charged the jury to this effect." This ground is without merit.

6. " 'In the trial of one charged with seduction, alleged to have been accomplished by persuasion and promises of marriage, it is not essential to a conviction that the evidence should disclose that there was a definite time fixed for the marriage to take place * * *.' Jinks v. State, 114 Ga. 430, 433 (40 S.E. 320)." Allen v. State, 56 Ga. App. 584(3), 193 S.E. 360.

7. The other exceptions to certain excerpts of the charge that the evidence did not authorize them are not meritorious.

Error from Superior Court, Walton County; Blanton Fortson, Judge.

Lester Studdard was convicted of seduction, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

E. W. Roberts, of Monroe, for plaintiff in error.

Henry H. West, Sol. Gen., of Athens, and Roberts & Roberts, of Monroe, for the State.

MacINTYRE, Judge.

1. The prosecutrix testified in part as follows: "I met him [Lester Studdard, the defendant] in February of 1935. I started going with him in February, 1935, and he came to see me almost every Saturday night say up until about June with the exception of two or three Saturday nights. He was going with me regularly. On September 15th [1935] we became engaged to marry. We didn't set any date, we just said sometime soon, I don't recall the words that he used when we became engaged, he just said we would be married sometime soon. On September 15th, 1935, I went with him to Browning Shoals in this county and had sexual intercourse with him [the first time] there because I was engaged to be married to him. I relied on his promise to marry me was the reason I did this. * * * I had intercourse with him and he promised marriage. He said we would be engaged to marry sometime soon. I don't remember just the words. Well yes he did ask me if I loved him. * * * Lester [the defendant] said 'We are going to be married soon.' Then he persuaded me. I believed his word and after then I just gave up. After I was engaged to be married I believed what he said. * * * He told me that he loved me. * * * Fie told me we were engaged and I believed his word. * * * " She further testified, in substance, that at the time of the intercourse he put his arm around her; that she objected at first and after she became engaged she made no further resistance. The defendant in the in^: stant case was charged in the indictment with seducing the prosecutrix by "persuasion and promises of marriage" only.

2. If the jury found that the defendant made love to a virtuous, unmarried woman, wooed her, made honorable proposals of marriage and had them accepted, and, after a solemn promise of marriage, which the woman believed to be in good faith, she harkened to the voice of love and yielded to her lover because she trusted him, and he made successful use of that engagement to accomplish the ruin of the virtuous, confiding woman, the jury would be authorized to convict for seduction. Adams v. State, 50 Ga.App. 507, 179 S.E. 223; Durrence v. State, 20 Ga.App. 192, 92 S.E. 962.

3. However, if the jury had found...