King v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

King v. State

12 S.E.2d 927, 64 Ga. App. 264, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 3

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 20, 1941

Docket28623.

StatusPublished

This text of 12 S.E.2d 927 (King 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

King v. State, 12 S.E.2d 927, 64 Ga. App. 264, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 3 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, J.

Moyd King was indicted for the stabbing of Mamie Frazier, and in a separate indictment was charged with a similar offense as to Willie Stribling. By agreement the defendant was tried for both offenses together, but with separate returns of verdicts. He was acquitted of the charge of stabbing Mamie' Frazier, but convicted for stabbing Willie Stribling. A motion for new trial was filed, containing the general grounds and four special grounds. The court overruled the motion and the defendant excepted.

While the defendant’s statement and evidence were in conflict with the testimony of the witness Stribling, and that of an officer, the latter were sufficient to authorize a conviction for the stabbing of Willie Stribling, the court being required to resolve all conflicts in favor of the verdict. We quote first from the testimony of Stribling, as follows: “I know Floyd King. I saw him on Halloween night. . . I got cut . . on the left jaw. Floyd King cut me with a knife. Floyd and another boy got to fighting. I *265 don’t know who the other boy was. He jumped on me on the streets. I was just passing by him; he told me I was with the other negro that jumped on him. I was not with him. Floyd hit me, and the next time he cut me. I ran home. I was bleeding. I had not had any words with Floyd before that. I did not see Floyd any more that night. I did not know that Floyd had cut Mamie until the next morning. That is not what I jumped on him about. I do not go with Mamie. . . My fight was about ten o’clock. I was coming by there. I did not see him talking to Mamie. I did not tell Floyd ‘What you mean talking to my woman?’ I did not hit him with a brick. He cut me on the jaw. He hit me in the face. He hit me before he cut me. . . The wound was not so bad.” The officer testified that on seeing the defendant “Willie Stribling was bloody.”

The special assignments of error are without merit. The charge was full and fair and adjusted to the facts.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Gardner, J.

Moyd King was indicted for the stabbing of Mamie Frazier, and in a separate indictment was charged with a similar offense as to Willie Stribling. By agreement the defendant was tried for both offenses together, but with separate returns of verdicts. He was acquitted of the charge of stabbing Mamie' Frazier, but convicted for stabbing Willie Stribling. A motion for new trial was filed, containing the general grounds and four special grounds. The court overruled the motion and the defendant excepted.

While the defendant’s statement and evidence were in conflict with the testimony of the witness Stribling, and that of an officer, the latter were sufficient to authorize a conviction for the stabbing of Willie Stribling, the court being required to resolve all conflicts in favor of the verdict. We quote first from the testimony of Stribling, as follows: “I know Floyd King. I saw him on Halloween night. . . I got cut . . on the left jaw. Floyd King cut me with a knife. Floyd and another boy got to fighting. I *265 don’t know who the other boy was. He jumped on me on the streets. I was just passing by him; he told me I was with the other negro that jumped on him. I was not with him. Floyd hit me, and the next time he cut me. I ran home. I was bleeding. I had not had any words with Floyd before that. I did not see Floyd any more that night. I did not know that Floyd had cut Mamie until the next morning. That is not what I jumped on him about. I do not go with Mamie. . . My fight was about ten o’clock. I was coming by there. I did not see him talking to Mamie. I did not tell Floyd ‘What you mean talking to my woman?’ I did not hit him with a brick. He cut me on the jaw. He hit me in the face. He hit me before he cut me. . . The wound was not so bad.” The officer testified that on seeing the defendant “Willie Stribling was bloody.”

The special assignments of error are without merit. The charge was full and fair and adjusted to the facts.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 S.E.2d 927, 64 Ga. App. 264, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-state-gactapp-1941.