Solomon v. State
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Cobb, J.
1. A woman who knowingly and wilfully consents to an act of sexual intercourse which is incestuous is an accomplice of the man, and her uncorroborated testimony is not sufficient to sustain a verdict convicting him of the offense of incestuous adultery. 1 Am. & Eng. Ene. L. (2d ed.) 390, and cases cited in note 2. See also Raiford v. State, 68 Ga. 672 ; Taylor v. State, 110 Ga. 151 .
2. There being in this case the testimony of only one witness proving the corpus delicti as well as the participation of the accused in the criminal act charged in the indictment, and that witness being an accomplice, and the facts and circumstances relied upon as a corroboration of the accomplice’s testimony not being such as to connect the accused with the criminal act, his conviction was contrary to the evidence, and a new trial should have been granted for this reason.
Judgment reversed.
All the Justices concurring, except Lumpkin, P. J., absent.
James G. Parks, by Hoke Smith & H. G. Peeples, for plaintiff in error. J. A. Laing, solicitor-general, contra.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 10 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.