Court Opinion

ID: 9673765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:18:10.348924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:24.012806
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S motion for a rehearing.
BEAUCHAMP, Judge.
In his very well prepared brief and able oral argument, appellant contends that we erred in the original opinion in not reversing this case: First, because the court included in his charge a definition of rape of a female under eighteen years of age. Second, because the court failed to give certain special requested charges, which were discussed fully in the original opinion.
We have carefully reviewed this motion in the light of the argument presented and remain of the opinion that no error was shown. Even though new argument and additional authorities have been considered by us, as a result of this motion, we think the original opinion is correct and presents our reasoning as effectively as we could by writing more at length.
It might not be amiss to observe that the amount of resistance required differs under different circumstances. An adult female person would naturally present more resistance, if acting in good faith, than a child would. A woman whose physical strength equals or is greater than the strength of her attacker would be expected to use that strength. What might appear to be a feigned resistance on her part would be more than a child would be capable of making, under circumustances like those before us in this case. It is measured as much by the judgment one is capable of exercising as by physical strength. Then too, a child may naturally be expected to exercise less resistance to the demands of her father than to some other person.
Considering all of the facts of the case, the appellant’s defense was sufficiently placed before the jury by the court’s charge and we fail still to find any reversible error in the case.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Hawkins, P. J., absent.