Case Title: Payne v. State

Citation: 258 Ga. 711, 373 S.E.2d 626

Docket Number: 

State: georgia

Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Date: 1988-11-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
258 Ga. 711 (1988) 373 S.E.2d 626 PAYNE v. THE STATE. 45805. Supreme Court of Georgia. Decided November 23, 1988. Robert F. Oliver, Robbie E. Colwell, for appellant. Johnnie L. Caldwell, District Attorney, Anne Cobb, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee. WELTNER, Justice. Ray Douglas Payne was convicted by a jury of statutory rape and sentenced to twenty years in prison. The record includes the unequivocal statement of the victim that the act had taken place, along with other supporting evidence. Payne denied that the incident had ever taken place. OCGA § 16-6-3 provides in part: 1. Payne contends the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the principle of law found in OCGA § 16-2-1: "A `crime' is a *712 violation of a statute of this state in which there is a joint operation of an act or omission to act and intention or criminal negligence." The trial court instructed the jury on the elements of statutory rape as set out in OCGA § 16-6-3, but failed to give the standard charge on intent, as contained in Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, Council of Superior Court Judges of Georgia, p. 13. Payne's defense did not relate, in any manner, to intent. Rather, the defense was that the incident did not occur. In view of this, any error on the part of the trial court to charge intent was harmless. Johnson v. State, 238 Ga. 59, 61 (230 SE2d 869) (1976). See also Redd v. State, 141 Ga. App. 888, 890-891 (234 SE2d 812) (1977). 2. A physician specializing in family and emergency medicine was called by the state. He testified that he had seen the victim approximately two weeks after the incident. The purpose of the examination was to determine if there was any physical evidence of penetration. On cross-examination Payne's attorney asked the witness: "Would you feel it unusual to wait some two weeks before that patient was examined?" The trial court sustained the district attorney's objection to this question because the question was not directed to the physician's area of specialized knowledge. Post v. State, 201 Ga. 81, 84 (39 SE2d 1) (1946). There was no abuse of discretion. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.