Austin v. State

128 S.E. 791, 160 Ga. 509, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 194
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJune 19, 1925
DocketNo. 4874
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 128 S.E. 791 (Austin 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
Austin v. State, 128 S.E. 791, 160 Ga. 509, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 194 (Ga. 1925).

Opinion

Hines, J.

1. The illness or absence, from providential cause, of counsel where there is but one, or of the leading counsel where there are more than one, shall be a sufficient ground for a continuance (Renal Code, § 990) ; but a continuance will not be granted for the absence of counsel attending eases pending in another court, except in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. Peters v. Peters, 41 Ga. 242; Cotton States Life Insurance Co. v. Edwards, 74 Ga. 220; Hatcher v. Bowen, Id. 840; Carroll v. Groover, 27 Ga. App. 747 (110 S. E. 30); Hamrick v. Stewart, 29 Ga. App. 220 (114 S. E. 723).

(a) A motion to continue for absence of counsel must affirmatively disclose that the motion is not made for delay only, and that the movant expects to secure his services at the next term. Wright v. State, 18 Ga. 383 (2); Burnett v. State, 87 Ga. 622 (13 S. E. 552); Wall v. State, 126 Ga. 86 (54 S. E. 815); Curry v. State, 17 Ga. App. 377 (87 S. E. 685).

2. Under the evidence voluntary manslaughter was not involved, and the court did not err in failing to charge the law upon that subject.

(a) “Provocation by words, threats, menaces, or contemptuous gestures shall in no case be sufficient to free the person killing from the guilt and crime of murder.” Penal Code, § 65.

(b) In the absence of a written request, the trial judge is not bound to give in charge to the jury sections 64 and 65 of the Penal Code, the former defining manslaughter, arid the latter .defining involuntary manslaughter, where the theory of manslaughter is based solely upon the statement of the defendant. Evans v. State, 151 Ga. 434 (107 S. E. 38).

3. The verdict is supported by the evidence.

Judgment affvrmed.

All the Justices concur, except Gilbert, J., absent for providential cause, and Russell, C. J., dissenting. I. J. Bussell, for plaintiff in error. George M. Napier, attorney-general, A. B. Spence, solicitor-general, and T. B. Gress, assistant attorney-general, contra.

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

Related

Blair v. State
304 S.E.2d 535 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1983)
Davis v. Barnes
279 S.E.2d 330 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Rutledge v. State
264 S.E.2d 244 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)
Rusk v. Rusk
183 S.E.2d 209 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1971)
Keith v. State
73 S.E.2d 595 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
Progressive Life Insurance v. Haygood
185 S.E. 534 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Crumady v. State
148 S.E. 157 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1929)
Macon County Ass'n of the Farmers Mutual Fire Insurance v. Slappey
134 S.E. 834 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1926)
Daniels v. State
133 S.E. 866 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1926)
Gore v. State
134 S.E. 36 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
128 S.E. 791, 160 Ga. 509, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-v-state-ga-1925.