From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Howard v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia
Mar 7, 1974
204 S.E.2d 629 (Ga. 1974)

Opinion

28378.

SUBMITTED OCTOBER 23, 1973.

DECIDED MARCH 7, 1974. REHEARING DENIED MARCH 21, 1974.

Rape; sodomy. Bibb Superior Court. Before Judge Hunt from Houston Circuit.

Randall Turner, William C. Randall, Bernice Turner, for appellant.

Fred M. Hasty, District Attorney, Walker P. Johnson, Jr., James W. Smith, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Courtney Wilder Stanton, Assistant Attorney General, G. Stephen Parker, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.


This appeal is from convictions in the trial court for the crimes of rape and sodomy. The appellant's contentions here are that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury verdicts and that there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of the alleged victim.

A review of the record and the transcript convinces us that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts rendered by the jury. With respect to corroboration, one witness testified that he knew the appellant personally and that he let him out of his taxi at the approximate time and place where the crimes occurred. Another witness testified that he discovered the victim just after the alleged crimes had been committed, and he saw the perpetrator of the crimes flee from the scene. Also, the transcript of the trial shows other physical corroborating evidence of the commission of the charged crimes.

Upon review we determine that the errors enumerated by the appellant in this court are wholly without merit.

Judgments affirmed. All the Justices concur.


SUBMITTED OCTOBER 23, 1973 — DECIDED MARCH 7, 1974 — REHEARING DENIED MARCH 21, 1974.


Summaries of

Howard v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia
Mar 7, 1974
204 S.E.2d 629 (Ga. 1974)
Case details for

Howard v. State

Case Details

Full title:HOWARD v. THE STATE

Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Date published: Mar 7, 1974

Citations

204 S.E.2d 629 (Ga. 1974)
204 S.E.2d 629

Citing Cases

Jones v. State

1. Appellants' contention that the evidence was insufficient to convict because the testimony of the victim…