TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sills v. State

Sills v. State, 135 S.E. 758 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 9, 1926
Docket
No. 17559
Judges
Luke
Citations
135 S.E. 75836 Ga. App. 1031926 Ga. App. LEXIS 795

Opinion of the Court — Luke

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Luke, J.

The accused was charged with rape and convicted of assault and battery. The only two special grounds of his motion for a new trial allege error because the court charged on assault and battery. Part, of the testimony in the case, if believed by the jury, would authorize a conviction of this offense. “It is conceded that a verdict of assault, or of assault and battery, or of assault with intent to commit a rape, may be founded upon an indictment for rape. An assault or assault and battery is necessarily involved in every case of rape. Speer v. State, 60 Ga. 381, 382 ; Goldin v. State, 104 Ga. 549, 551 ( 30 S. E. 749 ); Watson v. State, 116 Ga. 607 ( 43 S. E. 32 , 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1). Where a charge of graver character includes a minor offense, if the evidence will justify a verdict finding the defendant guilty of the minor offense, it is the duty of the judge to instruct the jury as to the principles of law applicable thereto. The graver offense must either necessarily include the minor offense, or the indictment must charge the essential elements of the minor offense. To state the rule as strongly as possible, the jury should in all cases be instructed that the defendant may be convicted of the lesser offense necessarily involved in the .graver offense, where the evidence submitted, under any view thereof, will authorize conviction of the lesser grade.” Moore v. State, 151 Ga. 662, 663 ( 108 S. E. 47 ).

The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1928: 11930: 11999: 119282026peak 1928 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Garney265 P. 668 (Idaho 1928)
  2. United States v. Williams197 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir. 1999)
  3. Davis v. State153 S.E. 436 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Williams197 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir. 1999)
  2. Davis v. State153 S.E. 436 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930)
  3. State v. Garney265 P. 668 (Idaho 1928)

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.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Watson v. State, 43 S.E. 32 (Ga. 1902) 61
Moore v. State, 108 S.E. 47 (Ga. 1921) 49
Goldin v. State, 30 S.E. 749 (Ga. 1898) 34
Speer v. State, 60 Ga. 381 (1878) 12

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list