Clark v. State

152 S.E.2d 692, 222 Ga. 802, 1966 Ga. LEXIS 634
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedDecember 5, 1966
Docket23783
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 152 S.E.2d 692 (Clark 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
Clark v. State, 152 S.E.2d 692, 222 Ga. 802, 1966 Ga. LEXIS 634 (Ga. 1966).

Opinion

Nichols, Justice.

William Patrick Clark was convicted of rape without a recommendation of mercy. The enumerations of error filed in this court which are not abandoned raise the following questions for decision: (1) Was venue proved? (2) Was evidence introduced to prove venue hearsay and therefore without probative value? (3) Did the trial court err in permitting a written confession made by the defendant to be read to the jury? and (4) Was an excerpt from the charge error? Held:

1. The prosecutrix testified that she returned to and pointed out to the police officers the place where the rape occurred shortly after the rape was committed. The police officers then testified that the place pointed out to them by the prosecutrix was in DeKalb County. This testimony was not hearsay and was sufficient to prove venue. See Colley v. State, 164 Ga. 88 (3) (138 SE 65); Coleman v. State, 211 Ga. 704 (88 SE2d 381), and citations.

2. The enumeration of error which complains of the reading of the defendant’s confession to the jury fails to present any question for decision as there was no objection made to such evidence upon the trial of the case, and the State’s prima facie showing that the confession was voluntarily made was not rebutted in any way (Eberhart v. State, 47 Ga. 598; Hill v. State, 214 Ga. 794 (107 SE2d 662)), nor under such circumstances, where no objection is made to the admission of such a confession, is it error to instruct the jury that.it must determine the voluntariness of the confession.

■Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. *803 Richard Bell, Solicitor General, Dennis F. Jones, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, G. Ernest Tidwell, Executive Assistant Attorney General, Carter A. Setliff, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

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

Related

Dennis v. State
279 S.E.2d 275 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Martin v. State
167 S.E.2d 638 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1969)
Clark v. Smith
164 S.E.2d 790 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
152 S.E.2d 692, 222 Ga. 802, 1966 Ga. LEXIS 634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-state-ga-1966.