Beckham v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Beckham v. State

120 S.E.2d 341, 103 Ga. App. 719, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 1040

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 17, 1961

Docket38849

StatusPublished

This text of 120 S.E.2d 341 (Beckham v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beckham v. State, 120 S.E.2d 341, 103 Ga. App. 719, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 1040 (Ga. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Jordan, Judge.

The only question here involved is whether or not there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict of guilty. Sodomy is defined as “ . . . the carnal knowledge and connection against the order of nature, by man with man, or in the same unnatural manner with woman.” Code § 26-5901. “The carnal knowledge necessary to constitute this offense (sodomy) is the same that is required in the case of rape. In this offense, as in rape, the crime is complete on proof of penetration. . . And ‘a conviction of sodomy cannot be sustained, the evidence not showing penetration.’ ” Wharton v. State, 58 Ga. App. 439 (198 S. E. 823). The defendant here contends that the State has not proved penetration and thus failed to prove the corpus delicti of this crime. It will be noted that the State’s proof of the corpus delicti consists of circumstantial evidence, statements made as part of the res gestae, and the defendant’s confession. The confession offered by the State, and unchallenged by the defendant, admits the essential elements of the crime, including the penetration into the rectum of the defendant. Such a confession is direct evidence. The statement of the other party at or near the time of the act, made in the presence of the defendant and acknowledged as true by him at such time, together with the physical facts sworn to by the officers, offers ample corroboration of the defendant’s confession. The corpus delicti may be established by circumstantial evidence. Sutton v. State, 17 Ga. App. 713, 714 (88 S. E. 122); Underwood v. State, 51 Ga. App. 735, 736 (181 S. E. 500); McVeigh v. State, 205 Ga. 326 (53 S. E. 2d 462). “The law does not require that the corpus delicti be proved beyond a reasonable doubt by independent evidence as a condition precedent to the consideration by the jury of a confession, but the confession itself may; legally and properly be considered as a part of the proof of the corpus delicti.” Logue v. State, 198 Ga. 672 (32 S. E. 2d 397).

The verdict being authorized by the evidence, the court did not err in denying the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Townsend, P. J., andFrankum, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Jordan, Judge.

The only question here involved is whether or not there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict of guilty. Sodomy is defined as “ . . . the carnal knowledge and connection against the order of nature, by man with man, or in the same unnatural manner with woman.” Code § 26-5901. “The carnal knowledge necessary to constitute this offense (sodomy) is the same that is required in the case of rape. In this offense, as in rape, the crime is complete on proof of penetration. . . And ‘a conviction of sodomy cannot be sustained, the evidence not showing penetration.’ ” Wharton v. State, 58 Ga. App. 439 (198 S. E. 823). The defendant here contends that the State has not proved penetration and thus failed to prove the corpus delicti of this crime. It will be noted that the State’s proof of the corpus delicti consists of circumstantial evidence, statements made as part of the res gestae, and the defendant’s confession. The confession offered by the State, and unchallenged by the defendant, admits the essential elements of the crime, including the penetration into the rectum of the defendant. Such a confession is direct evidence. The statement of the other party at or near the time of the act, made in the presence of the defendant and acknowledged as true by him at such time, together with the physical facts sworn to by the officers, offers ample corroboration of the defendant’s confession. The corpus delicti may be established by circumstantial evidence. Sutton v. State, 17 Ga. App. 713, 714 (88 S. E. 122); Underwood v. State, 51 Ga. App. 735, 736 (181 S. E. 500); McVeigh v. State, 205 Ga. 326 (53 S. E. 2d 462). “The law does not require that the corpus delicti be proved beyond a reasonable doubt by independent evidence as a condition precedent to the consideration by the jury of a confession, but the confession itself may; legally and properly be considered as a part of the proof of the corpus delicti.” Logue v. State, 198 Ga. 672 (32 S. E. 2d 397).

The verdict being authorized by the evidence, the court did not err in denying the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Townsend, P. J., andFrankum, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 S.E.2d 341, 103 Ga. App. 719, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 1040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beckham-v-state-gactapp-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack