Grоund one of the amended motion for new trial assigns error on the following charge of the court: “The law says that, to warrant a conviction by circumstantial evidence alone, the proven facts must nоt only be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.” It is contended that the charge as given was confusing, misleading, and unsound as аn abstract principle of law; it was not comprehensive enough on the degree of proof required to authorize a conviction, on circumstantial evidence; the evidence should be of such conclusive character as to exclude reasonable doubt; and the court did not define reasonable doubt.
The charge complained of in this ground was in almost the
*670
exact language of the Code, § 38-109. If a more complete charge оn the law of circumstantial evidence was desired, an appropriate request should have bеen submitted. It is not error to fail to define “reasonable doubt.”
Battle
v.
State,
103
Ga.
53 (
Ground two assigns as error the failure of the court to charge: “The evidence, to authorize a conviction, should be of such conclusive character and tendency as to exclude reasonablе doubt.” The charge on “reasonable doubt” was sufficient under the rules stated above, and this ground is without merit.
Grоund 3 of the motion complains of the court’s failure to instruct the jury that they might find the defendant guilty of “assault with intent to rape,” should they find that such an assault had been made, and were satisfied that the evidence was insufficient to authorize a verdict finding the defendant guilty of rape. Ground 4 assigns error on the failure of the court to instruct the jury that, if they found the evidence insufficient to convict the defendant of rape, but found that thе defendant had committed an assault and battery on the female, they would be authorized to convict the defendant of assault and battery.
An assault, or assault and battery, is necessarily involved in every cаse of rape.
Speer
v.
State,
60
Ga.
381;
Goldin
v.
State,
104
Ga.
549 (
It is strongly insisted by counsel for the State that the evidence in this case shows rape or nothing, and that it was therefore not error for the court to fail to charge as contended. Under all of the evidence, the jury was amрly authorized to find that a rape had been committed. Where all the evidencé makes a case of rape, the jury would not be authorized to believe the injured female’s testimony in part and disbelievе it in part.
Kelsey
v.
State,
62
Ga.
558;
Moore
v.
State,
supra. The rule is different as to the defendant’s statement. The jury might believe it in part, or reject it in part, or they might believe it as a whole.
Ross
v.
State,
59
Ga.
249;
Hayden
v.
State,
69
Ga.
732;
Tucker
v.
State,
180
Ga.
88 (4) (
It is not unreasonable to assume that the jury arrived at their verdict of guilty by connecting the evidence contained in the signed statemеnt of the defendant, that he entered the residence of the woman and assaulted and beat her, with thе woman’s testimony that she had been raped, since the circumstantial evidence offered by the State to connect the defendant with the crime might not have been considered by the jury to be sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. The signed statement of the defendant, intrоduced by the State, was an important link in the evidence to identify the defendant as the woman’s assailant, but this statement, construed with the officer’s statement that the defendant denied that he had raped the woman, was not sufficient to convict the defendant of rape. The statement was evidence that thе defendant had committed an assault and battery, and might have raised a question of fact for the jury as tо the intent of the defendant when he hit the woman and flung her on the bed.
*672 Since there was evidence introduсed by the State which, if believed by the jury, would have authorized them to return a verdict of guilty of a lesser crimе involved in the main crime charged, the court should have charged as contended in grounds 3 and 4. Moore v. State, supra; Rider v. State, supra. The rule that, where the evidence for the State proves the crime as charged, and the defendant rests his case on the defense of alibi, the lesser grades of the offense need not be charged, is not applicable to the present case.
Judgment reversed.