Williams v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Williams v. State

215 S.E.2d 260, 234 Ga. 258, 1975 Ga. LEXIS 1103

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 29, 1975

Docket29672

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 215 S.E.2d 260 (Williams v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. State, 215 S.E.2d 260, 234 Ga. 258, 1975 Ga. LEXIS 1103 (Ga. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Gunter, Justice.

This appeal is from a conviction for rape and a ten-year sentence. Error is enumerated: (1) on the general grounds; (2) on denial of defendant’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal; (3) "failure of the state to offer provable evidence of the alleged rape of Linda Williams coupled with its deferment of motion for nolle prosequi until immediately prior to resting of its case was error and deprived defendant of a fair trial.”

We have reviewed the record, and we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction. Therefore, the first two enumerated errors are without merit.

The appellant was tried under two indictments for rape against two separate victims. The cases were tried together by agreement of appellant’s counsel and the state’s counsel. During the course of the trial it developed that the alleged rape contained in indictment number 228, the companion case, had occurred prior to the time alleged in the indictment. The trial judge ruled out evidence with respect to that alleged crime. The state then with the consent of the court and the appellant’s counsel entered a nolle prosequi to indictment number 228.

The trial judge opened his charge to the jury as follows: "As I have already indicated to the members of the jury there remains for your consideration in this case the issue formed only by one bill of indictment identified as case number 229, State v. Matt Williams, charged with the offense of rape. You will not consider the other case which was mentioned at the beginning of the trial for any [259]*259purpose, nor shall you let the existence of that case influence your mind to any degree whatsoever.”

Submitted February 17, 1975 Decided April 29, 1975. J. Clayton Burke, Jr., for appellant. Albert D. Mullís, District Attorney, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, G. Stephen Parker, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

We think that the circumstances outlined show that the appellant’s third enumerated error is without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Gunter, Justice.

This appeal is from a conviction for rape and a ten-year sentence. Error is enumerated: (1) on the general grounds; (2) on denial of defendant’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal; (3) "failure of the state to offer provable evidence of the alleged rape of Linda Williams coupled with its deferment of motion for nolle prosequi until immediately prior to resting of its case was error and deprived defendant of a fair trial.”

We have reviewed the record, and we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction. Therefore, the first two enumerated errors are without merit.

The appellant was tried under two indictments for rape against two separate victims. The cases were tried together by agreement of appellant’s counsel and the state’s counsel. During the course of the trial it developed that the alleged rape contained in indictment number 228, the companion case, had occurred prior to the time alleged in the indictment. The trial judge ruled out evidence with respect to that alleged crime. The state then with the consent of the court and the appellant’s counsel entered a nolle prosequi to indictment number 228.

The trial judge opened his charge to the jury as follows: "As I have already indicated to the members of the jury there remains for your consideration in this case the issue formed only by one bill of indictment identified as case number 229, State v. Matt Williams, charged with the offense of rape. You will not consider the other case which was mentioned at the beginning of the trial for any [259]*259purpose, nor shall you let the existence of that case influence your mind to any degree whatsoever.”

Submitted February 17, 1975 Decided April 29, 1975. J. Clayton Burke, Jr., for appellant. Albert D. Mullís, District Attorney, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, G. Stephen Parker, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

We think that the circumstances outlined show that the appellant’s third enumerated error is without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 S.E.2d 260, 234 Ga. 258, 1975 Ga. LEXIS 1103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-state-ga-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack