Hill v. State

95 S.E. 213, 147 Ga. 650, 1918 Ga. LEXIS 93
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 15, 1918
DocketNo. 338
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 95 S.E. 213 (Hill 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
Hill v. State, 95 S.E. 213, 147 Ga. 650, 1918 Ga. LEXIS 93 (Ga. 1918).

Opinions

Fish, C. J.

1, 2. The rulings announced in the first and second headnotes do not require elaboration.

3. One ground of the motion for a new trial is: “Because the judge in the trial of said case failed to charge the jury upon the principle of law in regard to voluntary manslaughter, as set out in section 65 of the Penal Code, although the evidence adduced upon the trial of said case involved the possible finding by the jury of voluntary manslaughter.” To this ground the judge appended the following note: “The reason the court failed to charge as complained of was, that the law was not involved, and that both counsel representing the defendant insisted to the court and jury that voluntary manslaughter was not involved.” In a case where the evidence tends to show murder and voluntary manslaughter, if at the request of counsel for the accused, or upon his formal ■admission that the latter offense is not involved, the judge omits to charge the law relating to voluntary manslaughter, a judgment refusing a motion for a new trial which complains of such omission will not be reversed. Threlkeld v. State, 128 Ga. 660 (58 S. E. 49). In such a case, where there was no such request, or formal admission, the omission to charge would be reversible error. The note by the judge, quoted above, not having been made by the accused or his counsel, should be liberally construed in favor of the accused. Horton v. State, 120 Ga. 307, 310 (47 S. E. 969). Tested by this rule, the judge’s note is not to be construed as stating that the counsel for the accused formally admitted that the issues did not involve voluntary manslaughter, or that they requested the judge not to charge the law applicable to voluntary manslaughter. The statements made in the note furnish no reason for failure to charge the law relating to the offense of voluntary manslaughter, and the omission to do so was, [652]*652under the facts of the case, reversible error. Andrew v. State, 134 Ga. 71 (67 S. E. 422); Vinson v. State, 145 Ga. 293 (89 S. E. 203).

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except

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

Related

Cobb v. State
133 S.E.2d 596 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1963)
Smith v. State
68 S.E.2d 393 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1951)
Ridley v. State
60 S.E.2d 249 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1950)
Brawner v. State
58 S.E.2d 238 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1950)
Habersham v. State
53 S.E.2d 578 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1949)
Perry v. State
195 S.E. 175 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1938)
Muse v. Interstate Life & Accident Co.
166 S.E. 219 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
Kamper Grocery Co. v. Sauls
144 S.E. 403 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)
Minter v. State
123 S.E. 297 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1924)
Norwood v. State
111 S.E. 59 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Brown v. State
105 S.E. 289 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1920)
Burney v. State
97 S.E. 85 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 S.E. 213, 147 Ga. 650, 1918 Ga. LEXIS 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-state-ga-1918.