Dennis v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Dennis v. State

193 S.E. 887, 184 Ga. 838, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 666

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 11, 1937

DocketNo. 11974

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 193 S.E. 887 (Dennis v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dennis v. State, 193 S.E. 887, 184 Ga. 838, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 666 (Ga. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, Justice.

1. On the contention of self-defense, the verdict of murder wa's fully authorized.

2. Under the Code, § 26-1007, to be voluntary manslaughter, “the killing must be the result of that sudden, violent impulse of passion supposed to be irresistible; for if there should have been an interval between . the assault or provocation given and the homicide, of which the jury in all cases shall be the judges, sufficient for the voice of reason and humanity to be heard, the killing shall be attributed to deliberate revenge, and be punished as murder.” Williams v. State, 125 Ga. 302 (1-a), 304 (54 S. E. 108). Where, as in this case, under the State’s evidence, after the deceased was retiring from the scene of a mutual combat with the defendant, and while both of his arms were being held by third persons, the defendant brained him from behind with the blade of an ax in the back of his head, a verdict of voluntary manslaughter would not be demanded upon the contention of the defendant that the homicide was committed after an actual assault upon ' him by the deceased, or in a mutual combat, or under “other equivalent circumstances,” as provided by the statute. Tn such a case, “it was for the jury to determine whether the interval between the assault [or combat] and the homicide was sufficient for the voice of reason [839]*839and humanity to be heard.” If the jruy found it sufficient, as they did, the homicide would be murder; and a verdict so'finding with'a recommendation to mercy will not be disturbed on exceptions limited to the general grounds. White v. State, 118 (7a. 787 (45 S. E. 595); Williams v. State, 130 Ga. 400, 405 (60 S. E. 1053).

No. 11974. November 11, 1937.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. W. J. Wallace, for plaintiff in error. M. J. Yeomans, attorney-general, Ghatrles S. Garrett, solicitor-general, 0. II. Dulces, and D. J. Gloiver, contra.

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

Jenkins, Justice.

1. On the contention of self-defense, the verdict of murder wa's fully authorized.

2. Under the Code, § 26-1007, to be voluntary manslaughter, “the killing must be the result of that sudden, violent impulse of passion supposed to be irresistible; for if there should have been an interval between . the assault or provocation given and the homicide, of which the jury in all cases shall be the judges, sufficient for the voice of reason and humanity to be heard, the killing shall be attributed to deliberate revenge, and be punished as murder.” Williams v. State, 125 Ga. 302 (1-a), 304 (54 S. E. 108). Where, as in this case, under the State’s evidence, after the deceased was retiring from the scene of a mutual combat with the defendant, and while both of his arms were being held by third persons, the defendant brained him from behind with the blade of an ax in the back of his head, a verdict of voluntary manslaughter would not be demanded upon the contention of the defendant that the homicide was committed after an actual assault upon ' him by the deceased, or in a mutual combat, or under “other equivalent circumstances,” as provided by the statute. Tn such a case, “it was for the jury to determine whether the interval between the assault [or combat] and the homicide was sufficient for the voice of reason [839]*839and humanity to be heard.” If the jruy found it sufficient, as they did, the homicide would be murder; and a verdict so'finding with'a recommendation to mercy will not be disturbed on exceptions limited to the general grounds. White v. State, 118 (7a. 787 (45 S. E. 595); Williams v. State, 130 Ga. 400, 405 (60 S. E. 1053).

No. 11974. November 11, 1937.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. W. J. Wallace, for plaintiff in error. M. J. Yeomans, attorney-general, Ghatrles S. Garrett, solicitor-general, 0. II. Dulces, and D. J. Gloiver, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 S.E. 887, 184 Ga. 838, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dennis-v-state-ga-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack