Parker v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Parker v. State

45 S.E.2d 692, 76 Ga. App. 238, 1947 Ga. App. LEXIS 418

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 4, 1947

Docket31688.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 45 S.E.2d 692 (Parker 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

Parker v. State, 45 S.E.2d 692, 76 Ga. App. 238, 1947 Ga. App. LEXIS 418 (Ga. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntyre, P. J.

1. This is the second appearance of this case in this court.. On the first trial J. W. Parker was convicted of an assault with intent to rape. This court reversed the judgment of the trial judge on the-ground that the evidence was not sufficient to authorize the verdict, and pointed out that as a matter of law the evidence failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt, to the exclusion of every other reasonable-hypothesis, that the attack was made with the intent to commit rape. Parker v. State, 72 Ga. App. 302 (33 S. E. 2d, 739).

2. “When a case is brought to this court and the judgment of the trial' court is reversed, all questions as to pleadings and the effect of evidence-adjudicated by this court are binding as the law of the case on this court and, on a second trial of the case, on the court below, unless additional pleadings and evidence prevail to change such adjudications.”' Albany Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Shiver, 67 Ga. App. 359 (1) (20 S. E. 2d, 181):

*239 Decided December 4, 1947. J. T. Sisk, for plaintiff in error. B. Howard Gordon, Solicitor-General, Howard B. Payne, contra.

3. In addition to the evidence presented at the first trial, the prosecutrix testified in effect that she had seen the defendant peeping in the window of her bedroom when she was in bed; that the defendant, accompanied by his wife, went into the store at which the prosecutrix was employed and leered at her; and that at one time she was followed along a lonely path by a person who came from the defendant’s house and who was about the same size as the defendant.

4. Even with the additional evidence we think the jury were not authorized to find that the attack was made with the intent to commit rape. The trial judge erred in overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Gardner and Townsend, JJ., concur.

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

MacIntyre, P. J.

1. This is the second appearance of this case in this court.. On the first trial J. W. Parker was convicted of an assault with intent to rape. This court reversed the judgment of the trial judge on the-ground that the evidence was not sufficient to authorize the verdict, and pointed out that as a matter of law the evidence failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt, to the exclusion of every other reasonable-hypothesis, that the attack was made with the intent to commit rape. Parker v. State, 72 Ga. App. 302 (33 S. E. 2d, 739).

2. “When a case is brought to this court and the judgment of the trial' court is reversed, all questions as to pleadings and the effect of evidence-adjudicated by this court are binding as the law of the case on this court and, on a second trial of the case, on the court below, unless additional pleadings and evidence prevail to change such adjudications.”' Albany Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Shiver, 67 Ga. App. 359 (1) (20 S. E. 2d, 181):

*239 Decided December 4, 1947. J. T. Sisk, for plaintiff in error. B. Howard Gordon, Solicitor-General, Howard B. Payne, contra.

3. In addition to the evidence presented at the first trial, the prosecutrix testified in effect that she had seen the defendant peeping in the window of her bedroom when she was in bed; that the defendant, accompanied by his wife, went into the store at which the prosecutrix was employed and leered at her; and that at one time she was followed along a lonely path by a person who came from the defendant’s house and who was about the same size as the defendant.

4. Even with the additional evidence we think the jury were not authorized to find that the attack was made with the intent to commit rape. The trial judge erred in overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Gardner and Townsend, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 S.E.2d 692, 76 Ga. App. 238, 1947 Ga. App. LEXIS 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-state-gactapp-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack