Youmans v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Youmans v. State

84 S.E. 833, 16 Ga. App. 196, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 540

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 13, 1915

Docket6261

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 84 S.E. 833 (Youmans 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

Youmans v. State, 84 S.E. 833, 16 Ga. App. 196, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 540 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

1. Upon the call of his case the defendant announced ready, although a witness upon whose absence the motion for a continuance was later based was not present in court; and upon this announcement the court set the case for a subsequent day during the term. A motion for continuance was thereafter made, because of the absence of this witness; hut as the indictment had been found at a previous term of the court, the motion did not fall within the provisions of section 986 of the Penal Code. For this reason, and especially since it was not made to appear that the witness had ever been subpoenaed, the trial judge did not abu'se his discretion in overruling the motion for a continuance.

2. The evidence in behalf of the State is not subject to any other inference than that the female yielded to the defendant’s solicitation for sexual intercourse by reason of persuasion and a pending engagement to marry her and a repetition of the promise of marriage. See Wilson v. State, 58 Ga. 329; Pough v. State, 7 Ga. App. 610 (67 S. E. 695).

3. The evidence supports the verdict, and the discretion of the trial judge in overruling the motion for a new trial will not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Russell, C. J.

1. Upon the call of his case the defendant announced ready, although a witness upon whose absence the motion for a continuance was later based was not present in court; and upon this announcement the court set the case for a subsequent day during the term. A motion for continuance was thereafter made, because of the absence of this witness; hut as the indictment had been found at a previous term of the court, the motion did not fall within the provisions of section 986 of the Penal Code. For this reason, and especially since it was not made to appear that the witness had ever been subpoenaed, the trial judge did not abu'se his discretion in overruling the motion for a continuance.

2. The evidence in behalf of the State is not subject to any other inference than that the female yielded to the defendant’s solicitation for sexual intercourse by reason of persuasion and a pending engagement to marry her and a repetition of the promise of marriage. See Wilson v. State, 58 Ga. 329; Pough v. State, 7 Ga. App. 610 (67 S. E. 695).

3. The evidence supports the verdict, and the discretion of the trial judge in overruling the motion for a new trial will not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 S.E. 833, 16 Ga. App. 196, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/youmans-v-state-gactapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack