Dawson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dawson v. State

88 S.E. 990, 18 Ga. App. 176, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 205

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 26, 1916

Docket7168

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 88 S.E. 990 (Dawson 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

Dawson v. State, 88 S.E. 990, 18 Ga. App. 176, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 205 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

1. Upon a review of the entire charge of the court it is plain that the language used in the excerpt from the charge, to which exceptions are taken in the first ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, could not have impressed the jury with the idea that the court was presenting a contention of the defendant. It was merely in explanation of the court’s subsequent instructions as to the defendant’s defense of justification, and as introductory thereto, that the court stated to the jury that “on a trial for an assault or assault and battery, the defense may give in evidence any opprobrious words used by the person assaulted, and such language may or may not amount to a provocation, according to the nature and extent of the battery, all • of which shall be determined by the jury.” In the state of the record (there being testimony as to opprobrious words used by the defendant), the court’s reference to the subject of opprobrious words merely differentiated the principle therein referred to from the defense of actual self-defense, presented by the defendant, and was rather favorable to the accused than otherwise. See Hunt v. Central Ry. Co., 7 Ga. App. 375 (2), 377 (66 S. E. 1039).

2. In the absence of an appropriate- and timely request for more specific instructions, the charge of the court is not subject to exception upon the ground that the law of self-defense was not adequately presented, or upon the ground that there was a failure to present the defendant’s contention that he was assaulted with a knife by the prosecutor before he made an assault upon the prosecutor.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict, and there was no error in refusing a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

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

Russell, C. J.

1. Upon a review of the entire charge of the court it is plain that the language used in the excerpt from the charge, to which exceptions are taken in the first ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, could not have impressed the jury with the idea that the court was presenting a contention of the defendant. It was merely in explanation of the court’s subsequent instructions as to the defendant’s defense of justification, and as introductory thereto, that the court stated to the jury that “on a trial for an assault or assault and battery, the defense may give in evidence any opprobrious words used by the person assaulted, and such language may or may not amount to a provocation, according to the nature and extent of the battery, all • of which shall be determined by the jury.” In the state of the record (there being testimony as to opprobrious words used by the defendant), the court’s reference to the subject of opprobrious words merely differentiated the principle therein referred to from the defense of actual self-defense, presented by the defendant, and was rather favorable to the accused than otherwise. See Hunt v. Central Ry. Co., 7 Ga. App. 375 (2), 377 (66 S. E. 1039).

2. In the absence of an appropriate- and timely request for more specific instructions, the charge of the court is not subject to exception upon the ground that the law of self-defense was not adequately presented, or upon the ground that there was a failure to present the defendant’s contention that he was assaulted with a knife by the prosecutor before he made an assault upon the prosecutor.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict, and there was no error in refusing a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.E. 990, 18 Ga. App. 176, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dawson-v-state-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack