Hunter v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Hunter v. State

55 S.E. 1044, 127 Ga. 43, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 720

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided December 11, 1906·Published

Opinion

Eish, O. J.

To constitute the offense of riot there must be a common intent to commit the act constituting the alleged riotous conduct. Accordingly, it was error requiring the grant of a new trial for the court, upon the trial of two persons charged with this offense, to instruct the jury that if the defendants “united, with or without a common intent, in doing an unlawful act of violence, the acts and words of each one while the thing [was] in progress [became] the acts and words of the other one engaged therein.” Dixon v. State, 105 Ga. 787, and cit.; Tripp v. State, 109 Ga. 489; Coney v. State, 113 Ga. 1060.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Eish, O. J.

To constitute the offense of riot there must be a common intent to commit the act constituting the alleged riotous conduct. Accordingly, it was error requiring the grant of a new trial for the court, upon the trial of two persons charged with this offense, to instruct the jury that if the defendants “united, with or without a common intent, in doing an unlawful act of violence, the acts and words of each one while the thing [was] in progress [became] the acts and words of the other one engaged therein.” Dixon v. State, 105 Ga. 787, and cit.; Tripp v. State, 109 Ga. 489; Coney v. State, 113 Ga. 1060.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Hunter v. State, 55 S.E. 1044, 127 Ga. 43, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 720 (Ga. 1906).

Pincite

55 S.E. 1044 (Hunter v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related