Tudor v. State

1 Citing case

  1. Smith v. State

    327 S.E.2d 584 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 3 times

    Defendant contends the jury's verdicts of acquittal and conviction are inconsistent and repugnant. "The determinative factor in deciding whether verdicts are repugnant is `whether the acquittal of one charge necessarily includes a finding against a fact that is essential to conviction for the other charge. If so, the evidence is then insufficient to support a verdict of guilty in the convicted charge.' [Emphasis supplied.] Conroy v. State, 231 Ga. 472, 475 ( 202 S.E.2d 398) (1973); Jackson v. State, 154 Ga. App. 411, 412 (2) ( 268 S.E.2d 749) (1980); Martin v. State, 157 Ga. App. 304, 305 (3) ( 277 S.E.2d 300) (1981)." Shehee v. State, 167 Ga. App. 542, 544 ( 307 S.E.2d 54). Accord Tudor v. State, 164 Ga. App. 529, 530 ( 297 S.E.2d 529). The elements of the offense of burglary differ from the elements of the offense of rape. Compare OCGA § 16-7-1 (Burglary) with OCGA § 16-6-1 (Rape). Thus, a verdict of acquittal upon a burglary charge does not necessarily include a finding against a fact which is essential for a rape conviction.