Gilbert v. State

180 So. 306, 28 Ala. App. 206, 1938 Ala. App. LEXIS 129
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 22, 1938
Docket7 Div. 303.
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 180 So. 306 (Gilbert v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gilbert v. State, 180 So. 306, 28 Ala. App. 206, 1938 Ala. App. LEXIS 129 (Ala. Ct. App. 1938).

Opinion

RICE, Judge.

“On a charge of assault with intent to commit rape, the evidence, to be sufficient to justify the conviction, should show such acts and conduct on the part of the accused as would leave no reasonable doubt of his intention to gratify his lustful desire against the consent of the female and notwithstanding resistance on her part.” Wilson v. State, 22 Ala.App. 554, 117 So. 615, 616, and authorities cited in the opinion in that case.

As to whether the evidence, in a given case, does “leave no reasonable doubt of his (accused’s) intention to gratify his lustful desire against the consent of the female and notwithstanding resistance on her part” — said evidence being substantial-must, under our law, be left to the decision of the jury.

That is the situation here. Appellant was convicted of the offense of “assault * * * with intent to * * * ravish.” Code 1923, § 3303.

We have critically examined the evidence adduced at the trial. It was sufficient, in every respect, to be submitted to the jury. And with their verdict we cannot see that we are authorized to interfere.

Of course, the clothes worn by the young lady at the time of the occurrence having a tendency, as they did, here, to illustrate what happened, there was no error in allowing them to be introduced into ,the evidence.

The other exceptions reserved . on the taking of testimony being obviously, as we read same, without merit, we will not go into a detailed discussion of the rulings underlying them.

We can find no error upon which to rest a reversal of the judgment of conviction, and the same must be,. and is, affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Baker v. State
404 So. 2d 100 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1980)
Jones v. State
346 So. 2d 529 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1977)
Hogue v. State
312 So. 2d 86 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1975)
Williams v. State
282 So. 2d 349 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1973)
Kelsoe v. State
279 So. 2d 549 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1973)
Henderson v. State
89 So. 2d 580 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1956)
Hill v. State
53 So. 2d 766 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1951)
Stubblefield v. State
47 So. 2d 662 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1950)
McCluskey v. State
48 So. 2d 68 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1950)
Waller v. State
28 So. 2d 815 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1947)
Morris v. State
25 So. 2d 54 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1946)
Allford v. State
12 So. 2d 404 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1943)
Moore v. State
9 So. 2d 146 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
180 So. 306, 28 Ala. App. 206, 1938 Ala. App. LEXIS 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilbert-v-state-alactapp-1938.