Leatherwood v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Leatherwood v. State

103 S.E. 685, 25 Ga. App. 484, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 25

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 14, 1920

Docket11569

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 103 S.E. 685 (Leatherwood 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

Leatherwood v. State, 103 S.E. 685, 25 Ga. App. 484, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 25 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The defendant was charged with the offense of assault with intent to murder. Error is assigned upon the judge’s failure to charge the jury that the evidence must be sufficient to satisfy them that the defendant shot with intent to kill. This assignment of error is well taken. Where death does not ensue, the intent to kill cannot be a matter of legal presumption* but must be discovered from the evidence. 'For this reason, in every trial for the offense of assault with intent to murder, the jury must be instructed, in effect, that the burden is upon the State to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the alleged assault, if made by the defendant, was made with the specific intent to kill. See Gilbert v. State, 90 Ga. 691 (16 S. E. 652); Gallery v. State, 92 Ga. 464 (2) (17 S. E. 863); Wimberly v. State, 12 Ga. App. 540, 542 (77 S. E. 879). The other alleged errors are such as [486]*486will not likely recur on another trial. It was error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

The defendant was charged with the offense of assault with intent to murder. Error is assigned upon the judge’s failure to charge the jury that the evidence must be sufficient to satisfy them that the defendant shot with intent to kill. This assignment of error is well taken. Where death does not ensue, the intent to kill cannot be a matter of legal presumption* but must be discovered from the evidence. 'For this reason, in every trial for the offense of assault with intent to murder, the jury must be instructed, in effect, that the burden is upon the State to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the alleged assault, if made by the defendant, was made with the specific intent to kill. See Gilbert v. State, 90 Ga. 691 (16 S. E. 652); Gallery v. State, 92 Ga. 464 (2) (17 S. E. 863); Wimberly v. State, 12 Ga. App. 540, 542 (77 S. E. 879). The other alleged errors are such as [486]*486will not likely recur on another trial. It was error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 S.E. 685, 25 Ga. App. 484, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leatherwood-v-state-gactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack