Darby v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Darby v. State

96 S.E. 707, 22 Ga. App. 606, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 621

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 17, 1918

Docket9633

StatusPublished

This text of 96 S.E. 707 (Darby 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

Darby v. State, 96 S.E. 707, 22 Ga. App. 606, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 621 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

1. The motion by the accused for a continuance of the case on the ground of the' absence of a witness did not come up, in several particulars, to the statutory requirements (Pena'l Code, § 987), and the judge did not abuse his discretion in overruling it.

2. The court did not err in admitting the alleged dying declaration of the deceased, which, according to the- testimony, was made -a few hours before his death and when he believed that he was about to die. Under all the facts surrounding it, disclosed by the record, the jury were authorized to find that the deceased was actually in the article of death at the time of the declaration; and the court clearly instructed the jury that they could not consider the alleged declaration unless they found that the deceased was, at the time he made it, in the very article of death. Darby v. State, 9 Ga. App. 700 (3), 703 (72 S. E. 182).

3. The excerpt from the charge upon the subject of voluntary- manslaughter, complained of in the 4th special ground of the motion for a new trial, is not erroneous when considered with its context and in the light of the’.entire charge.

4. The court did not err in overruling those special grounds of the motion for a new trial based upon the disqualification of certain members of the- jury which returned the verdict against the defendant.’ The showing by the movant was met by a counter-showing by the State, and it does not appear that the court abused its discretion in this matter.

5. The court did not err in refusing to give any of the instructions requested. So much of them as was legal and pertinent to the facts of the case was sufficiently covered by the charge given.

6. There is no substantial merit in any of the other special grounds of the motion for a new trial.

7. The defendant in this case has been three times convicted of the offense of voluntary manslaughter. Twice, on account of errors in the trial of the case, this court has granted him a new trial. 9 Ga. App., supra; 16 Ga. App. 171 (84 S. E. 724). Upon the last trial no material error appears to have been committed; the charge of the court was fair, full, and as favorable to the defendant as he was entitled to under the law; and the verdict is amply supported by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.

Conviction of manslaughter; from Toombs superior court-.Judge Hardeman. October 4, 1917.

E. J. Giles, G. 1F. Lanlcford, G. IF.. Sparks, J. K. Hines, for' ■ plaintiff in error. Walter F. Grey, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Broyles, P. J.

1. The motion by the accused for a continuance of the case on the ground of the' absence of a witness did not come up, in several particulars, to the statutory requirements (Pena'l Code, § 987), and the judge did not abuse his discretion in overruling it.

2. The court did not err in admitting the alleged dying declaration of the deceased, which, according to the- testimony, was made -a few hours before his death and when he believed that he was about to die. Under all the facts surrounding it, disclosed by the record, the jury were authorized to find that the deceased was actually in the article of death at the time of the declaration; and the court clearly instructed the jury that they could not consider the alleged declaration unless they found that the deceased was, at the time he made it, in the very article of death. Darby v. State, 9 Ga. App. 700 (3), 703 (72 S. E. 182).

3. The excerpt from the charge upon the subject of voluntary- manslaughter, complained of in the 4th special ground of the motion for a new trial, is not erroneous when considered with its context and in the light of the’.entire charge.

4. The court did not err in overruling those special grounds of the motion for a new trial based upon the disqualification of certain members of the- jury which returned the verdict against the defendant.’ The showing by the movant was met by a counter-showing by the State, and it does not appear that the court abused its discretion in this matter.

5. The court did not err in refusing to give any of the instructions requested. So much of them as was legal and pertinent to the facts of the case was sufficiently covered by the charge given.

6. There is no substantial merit in any of the other special grounds of the motion for a new trial.

7. The defendant in this case has been three times convicted of the offense of voluntary manslaughter. Twice, on account of errors in the trial of the case, this court has granted him a new trial. 9 Ga. App., supra; 16 Ga. App. 171 (84 S. E. 724). Upon the last trial no material error appears to have been committed; the charge of the court was fair, full, and as favorable to the defendant as he was entitled to under the law; and the verdict is amply supported by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.

Conviction of manslaughter; from Toombs superior court-.Judge Hardeman. October 4, 1917.

E. J. Giles, G. 1F. Lanlcford, G. IF.. Sparks, J. K. Hines, for' ■ plaintiff in error. Walter F. Grey, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 S.E. 707, 22 Ga. App. 606, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darby-v-state-gactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack