Mosley v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mosley v. State

85 S.E. 678, 16 Ga. App. 573, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 134

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 17, 1915

Docket5905

StatusPublished

This text of 85 S.E. 678 (Mosley 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

Mosley v. State, 85 S.E. 678, 16 Ga. App. 573, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 134 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

1. While it is essential to a conviction of the offense of seduction that the jury be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the female alleged to have been seduced was, at the time of the alleged seduction, a virtuous unmarried female, and they should be so instructed by the court, still, in the absence of an appropriate and timely request for fuller instructions upon the point, the reading’ of the code section defining the offense of seduction is sufficient to inform them of the necessity for proof of the fact that the person alleged to have been seduced was “a virtuous unmarried female.”

2. There was conflict in the evidence, but, since it is not made to, appear that the finding reached by the jury was the result of aught else than the exercise of their exclusive prerogative of determining the credibility of witnesses, the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, J., not presiding.

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

Russell, C. J.

1. While it is essential to a conviction of the offense of seduction that the jury be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the female alleged to have been seduced was, at the time of the alleged seduction, a virtuous unmarried female, and they should be so instructed by the court, still, in the absence of an appropriate and timely request for fuller instructions upon the point, the reading’ of the code section defining the offense of seduction is sufficient to inform them of the necessity for proof of the fact that the person alleged to have been seduced was “a virtuous unmarried female.”

2. There was conflict in the evidence, but, since it is not made to, appear that the finding reached by the jury was the result of aught else than the exercise of their exclusive prerogative of determining the credibility of witnesses, the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, J., not presiding.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 S.E. 678, 16 Ga. App. 573, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mosley-v-state-gactapp-1915.