Smiley v. State

130 S.E. 359, 34 Ga. App. 513, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 363
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 10, 1925·No. 16724·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Upon a trial for kidnapping, under an indictment drawn under section 110 of the Penal Code of 1910, the fact that the accused was ignorant of the girl’s age, and that he believed, in good faith, and had good grounds to believe, that she was more than eighteen years of age, is no defense to the indictment. See Gravett v. State, 74 Ga. 191 (1 a); 1 Brill’s Cyclopedia of Criminal Law, § 352, and numerous cases cited.

(a) Under this ruling the refusal of the court to give the requested charge set forth in the motion for a new trial was not error.

2. Conceding (but not deciding) that the admission of the evidence complained of in the motion for a new trial was error, another trial of the case is not required, since, under-the other evidence adduced and the defendant’s statement to the jury, the verdict was demanded.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Smiley v. State, 130 S.E. 359, 34 Ga. App. 513, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 363 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

130 S.E. 359 (Smiley v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Veasey v. State
507 S.E.2d 799 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1998)
Tant v. State
281 S.E.2d 357 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Becton v. State
213 S.E.2d 195 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1975)