Dupree v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dupree v. State

22 S.E.2d 335, 68 Ga. App. 198, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 84

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 3, 1942

Docket29815.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 22 S.E.2d 335 (Dupree 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

Dupree v. State, 22 S.E.2d 335, 68 Ga. App. 198, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 84 (Ga. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinions

Gardner, J.

The defendant was convicted of using, in the presence of a female, without provocation, vulgar and obscene language. He filed a motion in arrest of judgment which was overruled and he excepted.

In considering a motion in arrest of judgment the evidence developed at the trial can not be reviewed. Sessions v. State, 3 Ga. App. 13 (1-a) (59 S. E. 196). Therefore we must look to the indictment to determine whether or not the alleged defect was such a one as to render void any verdict and judgment issued thereon. The indictment in substance charged that the defendant “did without provocation, use in the presence of Mrs. J. B. Dennis, a female, the following profane, vulgar, and obscene language : ‘Do you want to make $5, give me a date.’ ” We will not enter into a discussion of the origin and purpose of the provisions of the section on which this indictment is based. We call attention to Dillard v. State, 41 Ga. 278, 281, and Kelly v. State, 126 Ga. 547 (55 S. E. 482). This court has many times had under consideration questions arising from prosecutions under this section. In Holcombe v. State, 5 Ga. App. 47 (62 S. E. 647), this court said: “As used in this Code section, the phrase ‘obscene and vulgar language’ includes any foul words which would reasonably offend the sense of modesty and decency of the woman, or women, or any of them, in whose presence the words were spoken, under all the circumstances of the case. . . ‘Words get their point and meaning almost entirely from the time, place, and circumstances, and intent with which they are used;’ consequently it is usually issuable, and therefore a question for the jurjq as to whether any particular language is actually obscene and vulgar.” In Morris v. State, 6 Ga. App. 395 (65 S. E. 58), this court quoted Judge McCay in the Dillard case, supra, as follows: “Words get their point and meaning almost entirely from the time, place, circumstances, and intent with which they are used.”

Notwithstanding the fact that the indictment lacks any explanatory innuendo, we can not say as a matter of law that the words alleged to have been used by the defendant to Mrs. Dennis, *200 under all the circumstances attendant upon the use of them, did not convey such obscenity as the statute was designed to prevent in the preservation of the modesty and inviolate rights of females. It is the firm conviction of this court that we should leave the meaning and interpretation of the words, to be determined from the time, place, circumstances, and intent with which they were used, to the trial court and jury.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., concurs.

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

Gardner, J.

The defendant was convicted of using, in the presence of a female, without provocation, vulgar and obscene language. He filed a motion in arrest of judgment which was overruled and he excepted.

In considering a motion in arrest of judgment the evidence developed at the trial can not be reviewed. Sessions v. State, 3 Ga. App. 13 (1-a) (59 S. E. 196). Therefore we must look to the indictment to determine whether or not the alleged defect was such a one as to render void any verdict and judgment issued thereon. The indictment in substance charged that the defendant “did without provocation, use in the presence of Mrs. J. B. Dennis, a female, the following profane, vulgar, and obscene language : ‘Do you want to make $5, give me a date.’ ” We will not enter into a discussion of the origin and purpose of the provisions of the section on which this indictment is based. We call attention to Dillard v. State, 41 Ga. 278, 281, and Kelly v. State, 126 Ga. 547 (55 S. E. 482). This court has many times had under consideration questions arising from prosecutions under this section. In Holcombe v. State, 5 Ga. App. 47 (62 S. E. 647), this court said: “As used in this Code section, the phrase ‘obscene and vulgar language’ includes any foul words which would reasonably offend the sense of modesty and decency of the woman, or women, or any of them, in whose presence the words were spoken, under all the circumstances of the case. . . ‘Words get their point and meaning almost entirely from the time, place, and circumstances, and intent with which they are used;’ consequently it is usually issuable, and therefore a question for the jurjq as to whether any particular language is actually obscene and vulgar.” In Morris v. State, 6 Ga. App. 395 (65 S. E. 58), this court quoted Judge McCay in the Dillard case, supra, as follows: “Words get their point and meaning almost entirely from the time, place, circumstances, and intent with which they are used.”

Notwithstanding the fact that the indictment lacks any explanatory innuendo, we can not say as a matter of law that the words alleged to have been used by the defendant to Mrs. Dennis, *200 under all the circumstances attendant upon the use of them, did not convey such obscenity as the statute was designed to prevent in the preservation of the modesty and inviolate rights of females. It is the firm conviction of this court that we should leave the meaning and interpretation of the words, to be determined from the time, place, circumstances, and intent with which they were used, to the trial court and jury.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 S.E.2d 335, 68 Ga. App. 198, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dupree-v-state-gactapp-1942.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack