Ashford v. State

88 S.E. 205, 144 Ga. 832, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 134
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMarch 14, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 88 S.E. 205 (Ashford v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ashford v. State, 88 S.E. 205, 144 Ga. 832, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 134 (Ga. 1916).

Opinion

Hill, J.

The evidence.for the State tended to show, that the defendant had with a plow-line or rope so severely whipped his child (whose age was estimated by witness to be from 6 to 11 years) as to cause her death, and had also severely beaten a younger child of his, and had run away; that when arrested he represented that the child died from eating glass, which claim was contradicted by evidence of physicians that ■no glass was found in her stomach; and that the skin had been whipped from parts of the body and head of the dead child, portions of her flesh were beaten into a “jelly,” and there was a cut under her hair. The defendant admitted whipping the children. There was no direct evidence that the instrument used was a weapon likely to produce death. Seld:

1. Voluntary manslaughter was not involved, under the evidence, and there was no error in omitting to charge on that subject.

2. The evidence authorized the submission by the court to the jury of the theories of murder and of involuntary manslaughter in the commission of an unlawful act. Clark’s Crim. Law (2d ed.), 206, § 76; Wharton on Homicide, § 472.

3. Where an involuntary homicide results from the commission of an unlawful act which, in its consequences, naturally tends to destroy the life of a human being, the offense is deemed to be murder. Penal Code (1910), § 67; Clark’s Crim. Law (2d ed.), 190.

4. The charges complained of in the 2d and 3d grounds of the amended motion for a new trial were in accord with the principles of law announced in the preceding headnotes, and were not subject to the criticisms made.

5. The evidence supported the verdict, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Paul v. State
555 S.E.2d 716 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2001)
Park v. State
51 S.E.2d 832 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1949)
Huntsinger v. State
36 S.E.2d 92 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1945)
Wells v. State
162 S.E. 835 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
88 S.E. 205, 144 Ga. 832, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ashford-v-state-ga-1916.