¶1Speaking for myself, the undisputed facts in this case, as disclosed by the record, show such a state of moral depravity on the part of the accused as to be almost unbelievable. It appears that the defendant, for money received, was an active party to the commission of adultery by his wife; but it was also undisputed that the criminal act occurred privately, at a place in the woods, where no one (except the defendant’s wife and her * coadulterer) saw it, and where no one was likely to see it. The accused richly deserves severe punishment, and it is with great reluctance that I agree to grant him a new trial, but under the law and the evidence we have no alternative. However, upon another trial and under a different accusation, it is probable that severe punishment can be administered to him; not adequate punishment, it is true (for that would be impossible under the facts of this case), but still sufficient perhaps to deter others from the commission of a like crime. As there are no accessories in misdemeanors, but all connected therewith are principals, the evidence in this case might warrant the defendant’s conviction of adultery, but it does not support a conviction of open lewdness and a notorious act of public indecency as charged. Judgment reversed.
17 Ga. App. 323
Lasseter v. State
Decided October 29, 1915
Court of Appeals of Georgia · decided 1915-10-29
<p>1. Maintaining and keeping a lewd house is an entirely distinct and separate offense from that of open lewdness or any notorious act of public indecency tending to debauch the morals. These two offenses can not be joined in the same accusation. (Broyles, J., dissenting. While a defendant can not be charged with separate and distinct offenses in the same accusation, yet it is well settled that offenses of the same nature may be so joined. In my opinion, the two offenses here charged are sufficiently of the same nature to be included in one accusation.)</p> <p>2. The offense charged in the second count of the accusation was not set forth with sufficient clearness and fullness, and that count was subject to the special demurrer.</p> <p>3. Eor the reasons set forth above, the court erred in overruling both the general and the special demurrers.</p> <p>4. The error in overruling the demurrer rendered the further proceedings in the trial nugatory.</p>
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1944
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1915-10-29
View the full empirical analysis of this case →