Scott v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Scott v. State

155 S.E. 788, 42 Ga. App. 286, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 351

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 11, 1930

Docket20828

StatusPublished

This text of 155 S.E. 788 (Scott 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

Scott v. State, 155 S.E. 788, 42 Ga. App. 286, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 351 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The accused was convicted of seduction. The undisputed evidence showed that he had sexual intercourse with a virtuous unmarried woman who yielded to him because of his persuasions and promise of marriage, made to her immediately before the intercourse. The defendant made no statement to the jury. Under these circumstances the verdict was authorized, and, as no error of law during the trial is complained of, this court is without authority to interfere. The case of O’Neill v. State, 85 Ga. 383 (11 S. E. 856), relied on by counsel for the plaintiff in error, is quite different from this case. In that case no persuasion was shown, but merely a bald promise to marry, which was made a month or two before the intercourse and not thereafter repeated.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The accused was convicted of seduction. The undisputed evidence showed that he had sexual intercourse with a virtuous unmarried woman who yielded to him because of his persuasions and promise of marriage, made to her immediately before the intercourse. The defendant made no statement to the jury. Under these circumstances the verdict was authorized, and, as no error of law during the trial is complained of, this court is without authority to interfere. The case of O’Neill v. State, 85 Ga. 383 (11 S. E. 856), relied on by counsel for the plaintiff in error, is quite different from this case. In that case no persuasion was shown, but merely a bald promise to marry, which was made a month or two before the intercourse and not thereafter repeated.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 S.E. 788, 42 Ga. App. 286, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-state-gactapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack