Tiller v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tiller v. State

164 S.E.2d 915, 118 Ga. App. 590, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1467

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 1, 1968

Docket43498

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 164 S.E.2d 915 (Tiller 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

Tiller v. State, 164 S.E.2d 915, 118 Ga. App. 590, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1467 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, Presiding Judge.

Defendant was tried under an indictment for rape and convicted of assault with intent to rape. On appeal to this court we certified a jurisdictional question in the case to the Supreme Court which was answered in the affirmative. See Tiller v. State, 224 Ga. 645. Held:

1. The victim testified that she first saw defendant at about 7:40 o’clock in the evening and that he assaulted her at about 7:45. One witness testified that on the same evening he saw defendant several blocks away from the scene of the assault at approximately 7:40 p.m. Another witness testified that defendant came into a bar several blocks away a while before 8 o’clock that evening and stayed several hours. Defendant’s own testimony was consistent with that of the alibi witnesses. Construed most favorably for the defendant, this evidence tended to show impossibility of his presence at the scene of the offense at the time of its commission. Thus it was harmful error, even in the absence of request, to fail to charge the jury on the law of alibi, where this was the defendant’s sole defense. Moseley v. State, 165 Ga. 290 (140 SE 754); Pippins v. State, 224 Ga. 462, 464 (162 SE2d 338); Hobbs v. State, 8 Ga. App. 53, 58 (68 SE 515); Holland v. State, 17 Ga. App. 311 (1) (86 SE 739); Jenkins v. State, 96 Ga. App. 86 (99 SE2d 474); Coppage v. State, 113 Ga. App. 482 (148 SE2d 484).

*591 Submitted March 5, 1968 Decided November 1, 1968. Hester & Hester, Frank B. Hester, Stanley H. Nylen, for appellant. Lewis R. Slaton, Solicitor General, Carter Goode, Amber W. Anderson, J. Walter LeCraw, for appellee.

2. The second ground of the enumeration of errors is without merit.

Judgment reversed.

Hall and Quillian, JJ., concur.

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

Bell, Presiding Judge.

Defendant was tried under an indictment for rape and convicted of assault with intent to rape. On appeal to this court we certified a jurisdictional question in the case to the Supreme Court which was answered in the affirmative. See Tiller v. State, 224 Ga. 645. Held:

1. The victim testified that she first saw defendant at about 7:40 o’clock in the evening and that he assaulted her at about 7:45. One witness testified that on the same evening he saw defendant several blocks away from the scene of the assault at approximately 7:40 p.m. Another witness testified that defendant came into a bar several blocks away a while before 8 o’clock that evening and stayed several hours. Defendant’s own testimony was consistent with that of the alibi witnesses. Construed most favorably for the defendant, this evidence tended to show impossibility of his presence at the scene of the offense at the time of its commission. Thus it was harmful error, even in the absence of request, to fail to charge the jury on the law of alibi, where this was the defendant’s sole defense. Moseley v. State, 165 Ga. 290 (140 SE 754); Pippins v. State, 224 Ga. 462, 464 (162 SE2d 338); Hobbs v. State, 8 Ga. App. 53, 58 (68 SE 515); Holland v. State, 17 Ga. App. 311 (1) (86 SE 739); Jenkins v. State, 96 Ga. App. 86 (99 SE2d 474); Coppage v. State, 113 Ga. App. 482 (148 SE2d 484).

*591 Submitted March 5, 1968 Decided November 1, 1968. Hester & Hester, Frank B. Hester, Stanley H. Nylen, for appellant. Lewis R. Slaton, Solicitor General, Carter Goode, Amber W. Anderson, J. Walter LeCraw, for appellee.

2. The second ground of the enumeration of errors is without merit.

Judgment reversed.

Hall and Quillian, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 S.E.2d 915, 118 Ga. App. 590, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tiller-v-state-gactapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack