Battey v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Battey v. State

92 S.E.2d 593, 93 Ga. App. 712, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 840

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 6, 1956

Docket36122

StatusPublished

This text of 92 S.E.2d 593 (Battey v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Battey v. State, 92 S.E.2d 593, 93 Ga. App. 712, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 840 (Ga. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Carlisle, J.

The defendant was indicted for an assault with intent to murder, found guilty of shooting at another, and sentenced to serve from 2 to 4 years in the penitentiary. His motion for a new trial, based on the usual general grounds and two special grounds, was denied, and he has brought the present writ of error to have that judgment reviewed. Counsel for the defendant, in their brief in this court, have expressly abandoned all grounds of the motion for a new trial except special ground 2 in which error is assigned upon the trial court’s failure to [713]*713charge “the law of justifiable homicide and manslaughter as related to the question of self-defense,” for the following reasons: “(a) The evidence in the case and the statement of the defendant raised a question of self-defense, and such evidence and statement demanded that the court charge, without request, the applicable law of justifiable homicide and manslaughter.”

Decided April 6, 1956. Scoggin & Martin, for plaintiff in error. Chastine Parker, Solicitor-General, contra.

1. A ground of a motion for new trial such as indicated above is to'o vague and indefinite an assignment of error to present any question for determination by this court. Smith v. State, 125 Ga. 300 (54 S. E. 124; Hudson v. State, 26 Ga. App. 596 (4) (107 S. E. 94), and citations.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., and Townsend, J., concur.

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

Carlisle, J.

The defendant was indicted for an assault with intent to murder, found guilty of shooting at another, and sentenced to serve from 2 to 4 years in the penitentiary. His motion for a new trial, based on the usual general grounds and two special grounds, was denied, and he has brought the present writ of error to have that judgment reviewed. Counsel for the defendant, in their brief in this court, have expressly abandoned all grounds of the motion for a new trial except special ground 2 in which error is assigned upon the trial court’s failure to [713]*713charge “the law of justifiable homicide and manslaughter as related to the question of self-defense,” for the following reasons: “(a) The evidence in the case and the statement of the defendant raised a question of self-defense, and such evidence and statement demanded that the court charge, without request, the applicable law of justifiable homicide and manslaughter.”

Decided April 6, 1956. Scoggin & Martin, for plaintiff in error. Chastine Parker, Solicitor-General, contra.

1. A ground of a motion for new trial such as indicated above is to'o vague and indefinite an assignment of error to present any question for determination by this court. Smith v. State, 125 Ga. 300 (54 S. E. 124; Hudson v. State, 26 Ga. App. 596 (4) (107 S. E. 94), and citations.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., and Townsend, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.E.2d 593, 93 Ga. App. 712, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/battey-v-state-gactapp-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack