Crumpler v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Crumpler v. State

166 S.E. 457, 46 Ga. App. 58, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 46

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 17, 1932

Docket22689

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 166 S.E. 457 (Crumpler 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

Crumpler v. State, 166 S.E. 457, 46 Ga. App. 58, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 46 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, O. J.

1. An essential element in the offense of seduction is that the person seduced was an unmarried, as well as a virtuous, female. Penal Code (1910), § 378. It follows that upon a prosecution for that offense, the burden is on the State to affirmatively show that the female charged to have been seduced was an unmarried woman at the time of the alleged offense. See, in this connection, Bennett v. State, 103 Ga. 66 (29 S. E. 919, 68 Am. St. R. 77); Neil v. State, 117 Ga. 14 (43 S. E. 435); Zackery v. State, 6 Ga. App. 104 (64 S. E. 281); People v. Krusick, 93 Cal. 74 (28 Pac. 794); Iowa v. Carr, 60 Iowa 453 (15 N. W. 271).

2. In the instant case the defendant was convicted of the crime of seduction. The indictment, evidently through the inadvertence of the drawer thereof, failed to charge that the female, alleged to have been seduced, was an unmarried woman. There was no demurrer to the indictment, [59]*59and no motion to arrest the judgment. However, the evidence failed to establish the fact that the female in question was an unmarried woman at the time of the commission of the alleged offense. There was no direct evidence showing that fact, and the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to establish it. It follows that the verdict was unauthorized, and that the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial.

Decided November 17, 1932. B. Douglas Feagin, J. F. Feagin, for plaintiff in error. Gharles H. Garrett, solicitor-general, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Hooper, J., coneivrs. MacIntyre, J., not presiding.

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

Broyles, O. J.

1. An essential element in the offense of seduction is that the person seduced was an unmarried, as well as a virtuous, female. Penal Code (1910), § 378. It follows that upon a prosecution for that offense, the burden is on the State to affirmatively show that the female charged to have been seduced was an unmarried woman at the time of the alleged offense. See, in this connection, Bennett v. State, 103 Ga. 66 (29 S. E. 919, 68 Am. St. R. 77); Neil v. State, 117 Ga. 14 (43 S. E. 435); Zackery v. State, 6 Ga. App. 104 (64 S. E. 281); People v. Krusick, 93 Cal. 74 (28 Pac. 794); Iowa v. Carr, 60 Iowa 453 (15 N. W. 271).

2. In the instant case the defendant was convicted of the crime of seduction. The indictment, evidently through the inadvertence of the drawer thereof, failed to charge that the female, alleged to have been seduced, was an unmarried woman. There was no demurrer to the indictment, [59]*59and no motion to arrest the judgment. However, the evidence failed to establish the fact that the female in question was an unmarried woman at the time of the commission of the alleged offense. There was no direct evidence showing that fact, and the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to establish it. It follows that the verdict was unauthorized, and that the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial.

Decided November 17, 1932. B. Douglas Feagin, J. F. Feagin, for plaintiff in error. Gharles H. Garrett, solicitor-general, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Hooper, J., coneivrs. MacIntyre, J., not presiding.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 S.E. 457, 46 Ga. App. 58, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crumpler-v-state-gactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack