Hayes v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hayes v. State

180 S.E. 762, 51 Ga. App. 462, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 366

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 27, 1935

Docket24916

StatusPublished

This text of 180 S.E. 762 (Hayes 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

Hayes v. State, 180 S.E. 762, 51 Ga. App. 462, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 366 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The defendant and Hardy Joyner were jointly indicted for the offense of murder. Joyner was tried first and acquitted. Upon the defendant’s trial the court did not err in giving to the jury the following instructions: “The defendant, Charlie Hayes, is alone on trial in this case, and if it has or should come to your knowledge what may have occurred with reference to the case against the joint defendant, Hardy Joyner, you would not be influenced by it one way or the other, but you will try the case you now have on trial before you, irrespective of what has or may have happened to the other ease.”

2. It is well settled by repeated decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court that on a trial for murder, where there is evidence sufficient to raise a doubt, however slight, whether the crime be murder or manslaughter, the court should charge the law of manslaughter as well as that of murder. In this ease the evidence authorized the charge on the subject of manslaughter.

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., eoneur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The defendant and Hardy Joyner were jointly indicted for the offense of murder. Joyner was tried first and acquitted. Upon the defendant’s trial the court did not err in giving to the jury the following instructions: “The defendant, Charlie Hayes, is alone on trial in this case, and if it has or should come to your knowledge what may have occurred with reference to the case against the joint defendant, Hardy Joyner, you would not be influenced by it one way or the other, but you will try the case you now have on trial before you, irrespective of what has or may have happened to the other ease.”

2. It is well settled by repeated decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court that on a trial for murder, where there is evidence sufficient to raise a doubt, however slight, whether the crime be murder or manslaughter, the court should charge the law of manslaughter as well as that of murder. In this ease the evidence authorized the charge on the subject of manslaughter.

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., eoneur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 S.E. 762, 51 Ga. App. 462, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-state-gactapp-1935.