Britt v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Indictment for fornication; from Appling superior court—Judge Highsmith. May 10, 1919. While the witness for the prosecution was testifying the presiding judge asked her a number of questions as to when and where she had sexual intercourse with the accused, etc., and at the conclusion of her testimony counsel for the accused moved that the court declare a mistrial, on the grounds, that “the examination by the court of the prosecuting witness was extended and upon the vital…
Read the full summary
Indictment for fornication; from Appling superior court—Judge Highsmith. May 10, 1919. While the witness for the prosecution was testifying the presiding judge asked her a number of questions as to when and where she had sexual intercourse with the accused, etc., and at the conclusion of her testimony counsel for the accused moved that the court declare a mistrial, on the grounds, that “the examination by the court of the prosecuting witness was extended and upon the vital points of the case, and was a gross injustice to the defendant, and was calculated to confuse and mislead the jury with…
1Opinion of the CourtBloodworth, J.
1. A plea in abatement to the indictment, which charged fornication, was properly stricken when the ground thereof was that the only witness before the grand jury was the other party to the illicit intercourse. While the other party was an accomplice (Solomon v. State, 113 Ga. 192, 38 S. E. 332), yet fornication is a misdemeanor, and in such cases the law allows a conviction on the evidence of a single witness, even though that witness be an accomplice. Penal Code of 1910, § 1017.
2. ■ The 4th ground of the amendment to the motion for new trial will not be considered, as the trial judge…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Johnson v. Leffler Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1905
- Solomon v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
3Cited by2 opinions
- DeBarry v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
- Fussell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1933