Bridges v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bridges v. State

158 S.E. 358, 43 Ga. App. 214, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 260

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 14, 1931

Docket21246

StatusPublished

This text of 158 S.E. 358 (Bridges 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

Bridges v. State, 158 S.E. 358, 43 Ga. App. 214, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 260 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. “If a man has reason sufficient to distinguish between right and wrong in relation to a particular act about to be committed, he is criminally responsible.” Roberts v. State, 3 Ga. 310 (3) ; Hinson v. State, 152 Ga. 243 (3) (109 S. E. 661), and cit.

2. The accused was convicted of unlawfully shooting at another. The evidence amply authorized a finding that he was an idiot (and a dangerous one at that); but, under all the facts of the case as disclosed by the record, this court can not say the jury were not authorized to determine from certain parts of the evidence, and the legal inferences arising therefrom, that the accused had reason sufficient to know that the act he was about to commit (shooting at another) was wrong; and the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial judge, and no error of law on the trial being complained of, this court is without authority to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Luhe and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. “If a man has reason sufficient to distinguish between right and wrong in relation to a particular act about to be committed, he is criminally responsible.” Roberts v. State, 3 Ga. 310 (3) ; Hinson v. State, 152 Ga. 243 (3) (109 S. E. 661), and cit.

2. The accused was convicted of unlawfully shooting at another. The evidence amply authorized a finding that he was an idiot (and a dangerous one at that); but, under all the facts of the case as disclosed by the record, this court can not say the jury were not authorized to determine from certain parts of the evidence, and the legal inferences arising therefrom, that the accused had reason sufficient to know that the act he was about to commit (shooting at another) was wrong; and the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial judge, and no error of law on the trial being complained of, this court is without authority to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Luhe and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 S.E. 358, 43 Ga. App. 214, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bridges-v-state-gactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack