Haynes v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Haynes v. State

135 S.E. 515, 36 Ga. App. 119, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 810

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 9, 1926

Docket17585

StatusPublished

This text of 135 S.E. 515 (Haynes 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

Haynes v. State, 135 S.E. 515, 36 Ga. App. 119, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 810 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The accused was tried for an assault with intent to murder, the indictment charging that the assault consisted of cutting and stabbing with a knife. The judge charged the law of assault with intent to murder, and also the law of stabbing, and a verdict for stabbing was returned. Counsel for the defendant insists that the court erred in instructing the jury upon the subject of stabbing, and that the verdict was not authorized by the evidence. After a careful consideration of the evidence in the record, it is our opinion that the evidence authorized the verdict, and that the court properly charged the law of stabbing.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The accused was tried for an assault with intent to murder, the indictment charging that the assault consisted of cutting and stabbing with a knife. The judge charged the law of assault with intent to murder, and also the law of stabbing, and a verdict for stabbing was returned. Counsel for the defendant insists that the court erred in instructing the jury upon the subject of stabbing, and that the verdict was not authorized by the evidence. After a careful consideration of the evidence in the record, it is our opinion that the evidence authorized the verdict, and that the court properly charged the law of stabbing.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 S.E. 515, 36 Ga. App. 119, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haynes-v-state-gactapp-1926.