Howe v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Howe v. State

414 S.E.2d 748, 202 Ga. App. 462, 11 Fulton County D. Rep. 22, 1992 Ga. App. LEXIS 20

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 8, 1992

DocketA91A1555

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 414 S.E.2d 748 (Howe 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

Howe v. State, 414 S.E.2d 748, 202 Ga. App. 462, 11 Fulton County D. Rep. 22, 1992 Ga. App. LEXIS 20 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Carley, Presiding Judge.

After a jury trial, appellant was found guilty of simple battery. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the trial court on the jury’s guilty verdict, and enumerates as error only the general grounds.

OCGA § 16-5-23 (a) (1), provides, in relevant part, as follows: “A person commits the offense of simple battery when he . . . [¡Intentionally makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with the person of another. ...” Contrary to appellant’s contention, there is nothing in this statutory language which requires that the physical contact with the victim be made by the body of the defendant. “ ‘[E]ven under the former law . . . , which defined “battery” rather restrictively as “the unlawful beating of another,” battery was held to committable without direct physical contact between the parties. . . (Emphasis in original.) Lyman v. State, 188 Ga. App. 790, 791 (1) (374 SE2d 563) (1988). See also J. A. T. v. State of Ga., 133 Ga. App. 922 (1) (212 SE2d 879) (1975). The record shows that, in the instant case, the State proved the occurrence of a physical contact with the victim such as would be proscribed by OCGA § 16-5-23 (a) (1). Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motions for directed verdict and for new trial on the general grounds. See Fitzgerald v. State, 201 Ga. App. 361 (1) (411 SE2d 102) (1991).

Judgment affirmed.

Beasley, J., and Judge Arnold Shulman concur.

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

Carley, Presiding Judge.

After a jury trial, appellant was found guilty of simple battery. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the trial court on the jury’s guilty verdict, and enumerates as error only the general grounds.

OCGA § 16-5-23 (a) (1), provides, in relevant part, as follows: “A person commits the offense of simple battery when he . . . [¡Intentionally makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with the person of another. ...” Contrary to appellant’s contention, there is nothing in this statutory language which requires that the physical contact with the victim be made by the body of the defendant. “ ‘[E]ven under the former law . . . , which defined “battery” rather restrictively as “the unlawful beating of another,” battery was held to committable without direct physical contact between the parties. . . (Emphasis in original.) Lyman v. State, 188 Ga. App. 790, 791 (1) (374 SE2d 563) (1988). See also J. A. T. v. State of Ga., 133 Ga. App. 922 (1) (212 SE2d 879) (1975). The record shows that, in the instant case, the State proved the occurrence of a physical contact with the victim such as would be proscribed by OCGA § 16-5-23 (a) (1). Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motions for directed verdict and for new trial on the general grounds. See Fitzgerald v. State, 201 Ga. App. 361 (1) (411 SE2d 102) (1991).

Judgment affirmed.

Beasley, J., and Judge Arnold Shulman concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

414 S.E.2d 748, 202 Ga. App. 462, 11 Fulton County D. Rep. 22, 1992 Ga. App. LEXIS 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howe-v-state-gactapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack