Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Dennard v. State

Dennard v. State

81 S.E. 378, 14 Ga. App. 485, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 348
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedApril 18, 1914
Docket5539
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 81 S.E. 378 (Dennard 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
Dennard v. State, 81 S.E. 378, 14 Ga. App. 485, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 348 (Ga. Ct. App. 1914).

Opinion

Roan, J.

This defendant was convicted under an indictment charging him with assault with intent to murder, in that he ran an automobile against and over one W. H. Morgan on a public road, with intent to kill him. The motion for a new trial was based solely upon the statutory grounds, that, the verdict was contrary to law, and to the evidence, etc.

This is a very peculiar case. It is not shown that the defendant had any ill feeling for the man alleged to have been assaulted; no reason appears why he should have wished to run the man down on a public highway; there is no• evidence that the machine became unmanageable or skidded, and no explanation of his conduct is apparent unless it was actuated by a reckless disregard of human life. The presumption of malice may arise from a reckless disregard of human life; and “there are wanton or reckless states of mind which are sometimes the equivalent of a specific intent to kill, and which may and should be treated by the jury as amounting to such intention when productive of violence likely to result in the destruction of life, though not so resulting in the, given instance..” Gallery v. State, 92 Ga. 464 (2) (17 S. E. 863). And see Collier v. State, 39 Ga. 31, 34. There is no complaint that the court failed to submit the case fairly to the jury. The questions to be determined were purely questions for the jury; and, the trial "judge having approved their verdict, we are not prepared to hold that he committed reversible error in so doing. Judgment affirmed..

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

Related

Green v. State
304 N.E.2d 845 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1973)
Bailey v. State
113 S.E.2d 172 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1960)
Martin v. State
105 S.E.2d 250 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1958)
Jackson v. State
48 S.E.2d 864 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1948)
Payne v. State
40 S.E.2d 759 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1946)
Myrick v. State
34 S.E.2d 36 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1945)
Webb v. State
23 S.E.2d 578 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Weaver v. State
21 S.E.2d 542 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Mundy v. State
1 S.E.2d 605 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1939)
Maloney v. State
195 S.E. 209 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1938)
Easley v. State
175 S.E. 23 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Minge v. State
164 S.E. 68 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
Commonwealth v. Temple
39 S.W.2d 228 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1931)
Looney v. State
153 S.E. 372 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
Davis v. Commonwealth
143 S.E. 641 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1928)
Chambliss v. State
139 S.E. 80 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)
Moore v. DeKalb Supply Co.
129 S.E. 899 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Bazemore v. Stephenson
100 S.E. 234 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)
People v. Hopper
169 P. 152 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1917)
Tift v. State
88 S.E. 41 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
81 S.E. 378, 14 Ga. App. 485, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dennard-v-state-gactapp-1914.