Gosha v. State, 56 Ga. 36 (Ga. 1876). · Go Syfert
Gosha v. State, 56 Ga. 36 (Ga. 1876). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
56 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: McFall v. State (ga, 1975-09-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1901 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1901 1963 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." McFall v. State (2×)
Ga. · 1975 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Gosha v. State, 56 Ga. 36 , where it was ruled: `An infant under ten years of age cannot consent to sexual intercourse, and the fact that such is her age is conclusive that the act is done forcibly and against her will.'" Also Wright v. State, 184 Ga. 62 (4) ( 190 SE 663 ); Latimer v. State, 188 Ga. 775 (1) ( 4 SE2d 631 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Echols v. State
Ga. · 1922 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Gosha v. State, 56 Ga. 36 , where it was ruled: “An infant under ten years of age cannot consent to sexual intercourse, and the fact that such is her age is conclusive that the act is done forcibly and against her will.” We therefore conclude that there was no error in the charge complained of in this ground of the motion 'for a new trial. 2.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wesley Gosha, in error
v.
The State of Georgia, in error
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Jan 15, 1876.
56 Ga. 36
Allen Fort; J. R. MoCleskey, for plaintiff in error., C. F. Crisp, solicitor general, for the state.
Jackson.
Cited by 41 opinions  |  Published
Jackson, Judge.

The defendant was indicted and found guilty of rape. He moved for a new trial, and error is assigned here on two grounds: first, that the court erred in charging that a female child under ten years of age could not consent to sexual intercourse, so as to show that the act was not done forcibly or against her will, there being some proof of her consent; and secondly, because the venue was not sufficiently proven; and these are the two questions the record before us makes.

1. As to the first question, the rule at common law is well established, and we think founded in wisdom: See 4 Blackstone, (Cooley) 210, 212. It has also, in effect, received the sanction of this court: Stephens vs. The State, 11 Georgia Reports, 238. We shall not disturb it. That rule is, that her tender years concludes the question — she cannot consent.

2. In respect to the second point, we think that it does not appear affirmatively, with sufficient certainty, that the crime[*37] was committed in the county of Sumter. There is no positive proof in the record of the precise locus — the place where it occurred. It was within fifty yards of a residence, and that residence was within the county of Sumter; but there is no proof whether on the line, or near the line, or in the centre, or in what part of the county that residence was. It might have been within twenty yards of the line. We are constrained, therefore, to grant a new trial in this case on this ground, and do so the more readily because we think that the court below was rather severe in the penalty inflicted, twenty years in the penitentiary. The defendant was only some sixteen years old ; the girl probably did consent; and while the law renders that, no justification, as she was under ten, yet, perhaps, it should so mitigate the crime as to make the punishment lighter. At all events, we give him another opportunity of being heard before the jury and of appeal to the tender mercies of the court below. The parties all belong to the colored population of our state, who, owing to their ignorance, as a general rule, should have justice administered to them tempered with much mercy.

Judgment reversed.