Knight v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Knight v. State

203 S.E.2d 911, 130 Ga. App. 551, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1172

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 7, 1974

Docket48788

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 203 S.E.2d 911 (Knight 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

Knight v. State, 203 S.E.2d 911, 130 Ga. App. 551, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1172 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Pannell, Judge.

A defendant was convicted, of the offense of criminal attempt to commit aggravated sodomy and sentenced to five years in the penitentiary. He appealed to this court. Held:

1. The evidence was sufficient to authorize a verdict and there was no error in refusing to direct a verdict in favor of the appellant.

2. There was no error in refusing a requested charge by appellant, which charge required an intent of penetration in order to convict. See Carter v. State, 122 Ga. App. 21, 23 (176 SE2d 238).

3. Error is enumerated on the following charge: "And I charge you before you would be authorized to find the defendant guilty of the offense of criminal attempt to commit aggravated sodomy, the evidence must show beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the defendant’s intention to commit or perform sodomy which is a sexual act involving the sex organ of one person and the mouth or anus of another with the female that’s mentioned in the indictment and I charge you that it was his purpose to carry such intention into effect, with force, and against her will and I charge you that if he performed an act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of the crime of criminal attempt to commit aggravated sodomy.” While the interpolation of the words "I charge you” in the portion of the charge here italicized may have been a slip of the tongue, it was not a mere slip of the tongue, which might constitute harmless error. Here, the slip of the tongue was of a very damaging and prejudical nature, constituting an expression of opinion by the trial judge as to the truth of the facts required to be proven by the state and for the jury to decide. For this error, a reversal is required. Code § 81-1104.

Judgment reversed.

Eberhardt, P. J., and Stolz, J., concur.

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

Pannell, Judge.

A defendant was convicted, of the offense of criminal attempt to commit aggravated sodomy and sentenced to five years in the penitentiary. He appealed to this court. Held:

1. The evidence was sufficient to authorize a verdict and there was no error in refusing to direct a verdict in favor of the appellant.

2. There was no error in refusing a requested charge by appellant, which charge required an intent of penetration in order to convict. See Carter v. State, 122 Ga. App. 21, 23 (176 SE2d 238).

3. Error is enumerated on the following charge: "And I charge you before you would be authorized to find the defendant guilty of the offense of criminal attempt to commit aggravated sodomy, the evidence must show beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the defendant’s intention to commit or perform sodomy which is a sexual act involving the sex organ of one person and the mouth or anus of another with the female that’s mentioned in the indictment and I charge you that it was his purpose to carry such intention into effect, with force, and against her will and I charge you that if he performed an act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of the crime of criminal attempt to commit aggravated sodomy.” While the interpolation of the words "I charge you” in the portion of the charge here italicized may have been a slip of the tongue, it was not a mere slip of the tongue, which might constitute harmless error. Here, the slip of the tongue was of a very damaging and prejudical nature, constituting an expression of opinion by the trial judge as to the truth of the facts required to be proven by the state and for the jury to decide. For this error, a reversal is required. Code § 81-1104.

Judgment reversed.

Eberhardt, P. J., and Stolz, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 S.E.2d 911, 130 Ga. App. 551, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knight-v-state-gactapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack