Rich v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rich v. State

128 S.E. 820, 34 Ga. App. 181, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 127

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 14, 1925

Docket15945

StatusPublished

This text of 128 S.E. 820 (Rich 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

Rich v. State, 128 S.E. 820, 34 Ga. App. 181, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 127 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Bboyees, C. J.

The accused, was tried for the offense of rape and convicted of an assault with intent to rape. His motion for a new trial was overruled, and this judgment was affirmed by this court on December 9, 1924 (33 Ga. App. 153, 126 S. E. 154). On certiorari the judgment of this court was reversed on June 20, 1925, the Supreme Court holding, in effect, that the evidence for the State, if credible, demanded a finding that the offense of rape had been committed, and that there was no evidence authorizing the verdict returned. 160 Ga. 513. In view of that ruling, it is hereby ordered that the former judgment of this court in this case be vacated; and the judgment of the trial court is reversed on the ground that the verdict was unauthorized under the law and the evidence.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., eoneur.

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

Bboyees, C. J.

The accused, was tried for the offense of rape and convicted of an assault with intent to rape. His motion for a new trial was overruled, and this judgment was affirmed by this court on December 9, 1924 (33 Ga. App. 153, 126 S. E. 154). On certiorari the judgment of this court was reversed on June 20, 1925, the Supreme Court holding, in effect, that the evidence for the State, if credible, demanded a finding that the offense of rape had been committed, and that there was no evidence authorizing the verdict returned. 160 Ga. 513. In view of that ruling, it is hereby ordered that the former judgment of this court in this case be vacated; and the judgment of the trial court is reversed on the ground that the verdict was unauthorized under the law and the evidence.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., eoneur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 S.E. 820, 34 Ga. App. 181, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rich-v-state-gactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack