Case Name: Johnson vs. The State of Georgia
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1879-09
Citations: 63 Ga. 355
Docket Number: 
Parties: Johnson vs. The State of Georgia.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 63
Pages: 355–356

Head Matter:
Johnson vs. The State of Georgia.
[Bleokeex, Justice, was providentially prevented from presiding in this case.]'
Where the evidence showed no intention on the part of the defendant to forcibly have carnal knowledge of the woman assaulted, a verdict of guilty of assault with intent to rape was error.
Criminal law. Verdict. Before Judge Underwood. Paulding Superior Court. February Term, 1879.
Johnson was indicted for assault with intent to rape. The evidence showed that one Sarah Cole was awakened at night by having some one place his hand over her mouth; that she threw up her hand and felt the kinky hair of a negro ; that he grabbed her by the feet and pulled her to the door; that she screamed and he ran. There was also some evidence in regard to tracks, and in regard to confessions of defendant as to his presence. The confessions, however, were evidently extorted, and there was nothing to indicate the intention to rape, exeept as stated above. The jury found the defendant guilty. He moved for a new trial, which was refused, and he excepted.
C. D. Phillips ; J. B. Conyers ; Frank L. Haralson, for plaintiff in error.
C. T. Clements, solicitor-general, by Z. D. Harrison, for the state.

Opinion:
Warner, Chief Justice.
The defendant was indicted for the offense of an "assault with intent to commit a rape," and on his trial therefor was found guilty. A motion was made for a new trial on the grounds therein stated, which was overruled, and the defendant excepted.
Rape, as defined by the Code, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. There is no evidence in the record that we can discover, either by the defendant's confessions, or otherwise, that he attempted to have carnal knowledge of Sarah Cole, as alleged in the indictment; besides, it is very evident from the testimony, that the confessions from which his guilt was sought to be inferred, were extorted by threats and fear, therefore the Verdict was contrary to law, and the court erred in overruling the defendant's motion for a new trial.
Let the judgment of the court below be reversed.