Scott v. State

155 S.E. 788, 42 Ga. App. 286, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 351
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 11, 1930·No. 20828·Published

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

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

155 S.E. 788 (Scott v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

O'Neill v. State
11 S.E. 856 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1890)