Green v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Green v. State

156 S.E. 637, 42 Ga. App. 437, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 812

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 13, 1931

Docket21037

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 156 S.E. 637 (Green 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

Green v. State, 156 S.E. 637, 42 Ga. App. 437, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 812 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

Under the rulings in Johnson v. State, 63 Ga. 355, Dorsey v. State, 108 Ga. 477 (34 S. E. 135), and Pauldo v. State, 29 Ga. App. 389 (115 S. E. 668), the evidence in the instant case did not authorize the jury to find the defendant guilty of assault with intent to rape. The evidence as to the intent of the accused was wholly circumstantial and did not exclude the other reasonable hypothesis that he was liidingunder the bed for the purpose of committing a larceny from the house, and that when he rolled out from under the bed and grabbed at the female (in a room lighted by a lamp and with a door open to an adjoining room where another young- woman was sleeping), who, hearing a noise under the bed, had jumped from the bed to the floor and was screaming, he was endeavoring to escape from the house and to silence the screams of the female. It follows that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

~Luke and Bloodxvorih, JJ., concur. J. L. Kent, J. Eugene Coolc, for plaintiff in error. Fred Kea, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Broyles, C. J.

Under the rulings in Johnson v. State, 63 Ga. 355, Dorsey v. State, 108 Ga. 477 (34 S. E. 135), and Pauldo v. State, 29 Ga. App. 389 (115 S. E. 668), the evidence in the instant case did not authorize the jury to find the defendant guilty of assault with intent to rape. The evidence as to the intent of the accused was wholly circumstantial and did not exclude the other reasonable hypothesis that he was liidingunder the bed for the purpose of committing a larceny from the house, and that when he rolled out from under the bed and grabbed at the female (in a room lighted by a lamp and with a door open to an adjoining room where another young- woman was sleeping), who, hearing a noise under the bed, had jumped from the bed to the floor and was screaming, he was endeavoring to escape from the house and to silence the screams of the female. It follows that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

~Luke and Bloodxvorih, JJ., concur. J. L. Kent, J. Eugene Coolc, for plaintiff in error. Fred Kea, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 S.E. 637, 42 Ga. App. 437, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-state-gactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack