Singleton v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Singleton v. State

276 S.E.2d 685, 157 Ga. App. 192, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 1731

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 20, 1981

Docket61158

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 276 S.E.2d 685 (Singleton 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

Singleton v. State, 276 S.E.2d 685, 157 Ga. App. 192, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 1731 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Judge.

The appellants, Henry Singleton and Charles Tabor, appeal their joint convictions for rape. Held:

1. The first enumeration of error is directed to the trial court’s refusal to consider evidence of the victim’s reputation for promiscuity when offered during the pre-sentencing hearing. Though conceding that the evidence was inadmissable during the guilt/ innocence phase of the trial under Code Ann. § 38-202.1 (Ga. L. 1976, p. 741), the appellants argue that the trial court had a duty to consider it in mitigation of punishment. We disagree. The Code section applies by its terms to “any prosecution for rape” making no distinction between the different phases of the trial. Indeed, the philosophy behind the appellants’ argument is precisely that which the statute seeks to eliminate, i.e., that women of promiscuous sexual reputation are entitled to less protection under the rape laws than women of chaste reputation. In any event, we must reject this enumeration of error due to the absence of a sufficient offer of proof.

2. The trial court fully and fairly instructed the jury to the effect that the appellants could not be convicted if the prosecutrix consented to engage in intercourse with them. See generally Curtis v. State, 236 Ga. 362 (1) (223 SE2d 721) (1976).

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, C. J., and Carley, J., concur.

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

Banke, Judge.

The appellants, Henry Singleton and Charles Tabor, appeal their joint convictions for rape. Held:

1. The first enumeration of error is directed to the trial court’s refusal to consider evidence of the victim’s reputation for promiscuity when offered during the pre-sentencing hearing. Though conceding that the evidence was inadmissable during the guilt/ innocence phase of the trial under Code Ann. § 38-202.1 (Ga. L. 1976, p. 741), the appellants argue that the trial court had a duty to consider it in mitigation of punishment. We disagree. The Code section applies by its terms to “any prosecution for rape” making no distinction between the different phases of the trial. Indeed, the philosophy behind the appellants’ argument is precisely that which the statute seeks to eliminate, i.e., that women of promiscuous sexual reputation are entitled to less protection under the rape laws than women of chaste reputation. In any event, we must reject this enumeration of error due to the absence of a sufficient offer of proof.

2. The trial court fully and fairly instructed the jury to the effect that the appellants could not be convicted if the prosecutrix consented to engage in intercourse with them. See generally Curtis v. State, 236 Ga. 362 (1) (223 SE2d 721) (1976).

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, C. J., and Carley, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 S.E.2d 685, 157 Ga. App. 192, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 1731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singleton-v-state-gactapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack