Wilson v. State
| Citation | 22 Ala.App. 554,117 So. 615 |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1928 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 401 |
| Parties | WILSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Covington County; J. Morgan Prestwood Judge.
Harry Wilson was convicted of assault with intent to ravish, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
A.R Powell, of Andalusia, for appellant.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Briefly put, the state's case, as made out by the testimony of its chief witness, Miss Beanie Rhodes, whom we will term the prosecutrix, was substantially as follows:
Appellant drove the car in which he was riding up alongside the prosecutrix, who was walking in the town of Opp, and invited her to ride. After she demurred, on the ground that the distance was short, that she was only going to her boarding place, etc., and upon appellant's insistence, she accepted the invitation, got into his car and was driven by and beyond her boarding place; appellant stating, in answer to her protest that she must get out, did not want to go on, etc., that he was only going a short distance out of town, to Hickory Grove, to "see a fellow." When Hickory Grove was reached, upon prosecutrix's demand that appellant stop and let her go back, he replied that the "fellow" lived just a little further on, and kept driving. He turned off the main highway, went some distance, and turned again, and, when he reached a place where it seemed that no people "ever travelled that road," he stopped his car, shut off the engine, and demanded, in colloquial language, that would not look well in print, that prosecutrix allow him to have sexual intercourse with her, accompanying his demand with a physical assault upon her body which could have had no other purpose than the accomplishment of his announced desire. Upon prosecutrix's vigorous resistance, and her "hollering and crying," and two boys being observed upon a neighboring hill, appellant desisted temporarily, but commanded prosecutrix, on penalty of death at his hands, to "get back on the car" (out of which she had been "pushed" by appellant), and announced to her that he was going to take her to "Jackson Woods," and that, if she "wouldn't give up" (meaning, necessarily, let him have intercourse with her), he would kill her. Appellant drove, with prosecutrix in the car, some further distance to a point where the road they were on came into the Florala-Opp highway. Instead of turning the car into the highway in the direction of Opp, where prosecutrix lived, he turned it, over the strenuous objections and physical efforts of prosecutrix, into the highway in the direction of Florala, which was also in the direction of "Jackson Woods," where he had told prosecutrix he was going to take her. Once fairly in said highway, with the car directed as just stated, appellant speeded up his car, whereupon prosecutrix leaped from same, and received distinct injuries to her person.
Appellant's testimony contained a denial of the statements of prosecutrix tending to prove the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State
...to gratify his lustful desire against the consent of the female and notwithstanding resistance on her part.' See also, Wilson v. State, 22 Ala.App. 554, 117 So. 615; Pumphrey v. State, 156 Ala. 103, 47 So. 'We do not think that it is necessary for us to analyze the evidence to illustrate ou......
-
Crook v. State, 4 Div. 342
...prejudicial is largely within the discretion of the trial court." Valley Min., supra; McElroy § 21.01(4). See also Wilson v. State, 22 Ala.App. 554, 555, 117 So. 615 (1928). The record shows no abuse of discretion by the trial court. The State was entitled to show why and for what purpose t......
-
Baker v. State
...the consent of the female not withstanding resistance on her part. Gilbert v. State, 28 Ala.App. 206, 180 So. 306; and Wilson v. State, 22 Ala.App. 554, 117 So. 615." We have carefully reviewed the evidence as contained in this trial record, and conclude through application of the above sta......
-
Varner v. State
...the circumstances under which the test results were obtained. Dockery v. State, 269 Ala. 564, 114 So.2d 394 (1959); Wilson v. State, 22 Ala.App. 554, 117 So. 615 (1928). One party may cross examine an adversary expert psychiatric witness as to the depth of his investigation. Brown v. State,......