Harris v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Harris v. State

179 S.E. 845, 51 Ga. App. 227, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 638

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 3, 1935

Docket24766

StatusPublished

This text of 179 S.E. 845 (Harris 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

Harris v. State, 179 S.E. 845, 51 Ga. App. 227, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 638 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of shooting at another. The evidence showed that Ebb Burden, William Wansley, and the defendant “staged” a shooting affray, the defendant shooting at Burden and Wansley, and Burden and Wansley shooting at 'him; that the defendant was shot twice, while neither Burden nor Wansley was hit. The evidence would have authorized a finding that Burden and Wansley were the aggressors in the affray, and that when the defendant shot at them the circumstances were sufficient to excite his fears as a reasonable man that Burden and Wansley were manifestly intending by violence to commit a felony on his person. The court, therefore, erred in omitting to submit to the jury the question whether the defendant shot in self-defense or under the fears of a reasonable man. As stated in Central Railroad v. Harris, 76 Ga. 501, “where the judge gives in charge substantially the law covering the case, if more specific instructions [228]*228on any point are desired, they should be asked; but the law of the ease must be given to the jury to the extent of covering the substantial issues made by the evidence, whether requested or not, or whether the attention of the court be called thereto or not; otherwise the verdict will be set aside.” See also' Hardison v. State, 18 Ga. App. 692 (3) (90 S. E. 374). The other alleged errors are not passed upon. Eor the reason stated, the refusal to grant a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of shooting at another. The evidence showed that Ebb Burden, William Wansley, and the defendant “staged” a shooting affray, the defendant shooting at Burden and Wansley, and Burden and Wansley shooting at 'him; that the defendant was shot twice, while neither Burden nor Wansley was hit. The evidence would have authorized a finding that Burden and Wansley were the aggressors in the affray, and that when the defendant shot at them the circumstances were sufficient to excite his fears as a reasonable man that Burden and Wansley were manifestly intending by violence to commit a felony on his person. The court, therefore, erred in omitting to submit to the jury the question whether the defendant shot in self-defense or under the fears of a reasonable man. As stated in Central Railroad v. Harris, 76 Ga. 501, “where the judge gives in charge substantially the law covering the case, if more specific instructions [228]*228on any point are desired, they should be asked; but the law of the ease must be given to the jury to the extent of covering the substantial issues made by the evidence, whether requested or not, or whether the attention of the court be called thereto or not; otherwise the verdict will be set aside.” See also' Hardison v. State, 18 Ga. App. 692 (3) (90 S. E. 374). The other alleged errors are not passed upon. Eor the reason stated, the refusal to grant a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.E. 845, 51 Ga. App. 227, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-state-gactapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack