Cherry v. State

38 S.E. 341, 112 Ga. 871, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 118
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMarch 1, 1901
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 38 S.E. 341 (Cherry v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cherry v. State, 38 S.E. 341, 112 Ga. 871, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 118 (Ga. 1901).

Opinion

Lewis, J.

In the superior court of Stewart county Arthur Cherry was convicted of seduction. He brings the case to this court, assigning error upon the refusal of the court below to grant his motion for a new trial.

[872]*8721. It appeared upon the trial that for some time prior to the alleged seduction the accused and the prosecutrix had been engaged to be married. The evidence is to the’effect that the woman resisted the importunities of the accused, bub finally yielded to him upon his promise that he would hasten the marriage in the event she became pregnant.

Had there been no previous engagement to marry, the offense of seduction could not have been made out by proving that the prosecutrix yielded to the defendant under the influence of a promise to marry her in the event of her pregnancy. Where, however, as in the present case, there is an existing definite agreement between the parties that they shall be married at a fixed time in the future, and the woman, reposing full confidence in the man, yields to his lustful embraces, the latter is none the less guilty of seduction because it is shown that as an additional inducement he held out to the woman the promise to hasten the marriage if she should become pregnant by him.

2. The foregoing covers the only question presented by the record which we deem it necessary to consider. There was ample evidence to bring the case under the rule which we have laid down. The testimony for the defendant relating to the defense of alibi did not, at best, demonstrate the impossibility of his presence at the time of the commission of the crime; and there was no reason why the jury could not, under the principle here announced, legally find the accused guilty as charged in the indictment.

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring, except Simmons, G. J., absent.

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

Related

Allen v. State
193 S.E. 360 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1937)
Martin v. State
185 S.E. 387 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Duggins v. Commonwealth
290 S.W. 514 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1927)
State v. Lujan
170 P. 734 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1918)
Durrence v. State
92 S.E. 962 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Shattles v. State
86 S.E. 463 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1915)
Boyett v. State
84 S.E. 613 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1915)
Taylor v. State
169 S.W. 341 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1914)
Morris v. State
81 S.E. 257 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1914)
Pough v. State
67 S.E. 695 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1910)
Dougherty v. State
66 S.E. 276 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1909)
Woodard v. State
63 S.E. 573 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1909)
State v. O'Hare
68 L.R.A. 107 (Washington Supreme Court, 1904)
Saunders v. Miller
47 S.E. 338 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)
Jinks v. State
40 S.E. 320 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1901)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 S.E. 341, 112 Ga. 871, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cherry-v-state-ga-1901.