Loyd v. State

106 S.E. 601, 26 Ga. App. 259, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 93
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 28, 1921
Docket11840
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 106 S.E. 601 (Loyd 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
Loyd v. State, 106 S.E. 601, 26 Ga. App. 259, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 93 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. The evidence in this case shows conclusively that while Tobe Harrell was sitting in a chair in the sheriff’s office in the court-house, preparing to sign a criminal recognizance for a man against who Loyd had swrorn out a warrant, Loyd shot Harrell three times with a thirty-two-caliber pistol, hitting him once in the shoulder, once in the neck, and once near the heart. Loyd, in his statement on his trial, said: " I just wanted to keep him (Harrell) from signing that bond and beating me out of my money, ” and, further, that he had no intention" of murdering Harrell. Loyd was charged with assault with intent to murder .and was convicted of shooting at another, with a recommendation that he be punished as for a misdemeanor, and was sentenced by the court as for a misdemeanor. The court did not err in charging the law of shooting at another; nor was the verdict finding defendant guilty of the lesser offense, with a recommendation that he be punished as for a misdemeanor, contrary to law.

2. Where the judge charged the jury in effect that the jury should fix a maximum and minimum sentence in the event of a conviction for either assault with intent to murder or shooting at another, but he fails to instruct them to fix • such sentence if they recommend that he be punished as for a misdemeanor, and the judge himself imposes a misdemeanor sentence, the charge to this effect furnishes no ground of complaint on the part of the defendant.

3. There is no merit in any of the approved grounds of the motion for a new trial, and the evidence amply sustains the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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

Related

Sell v. State
274 S.E.2d 723 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1980)
Nestor v. State
176 S.E.2d 637 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1970)
Branham v. State
74 S.E.2d 124 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
Pate v. State
74 S.E.2d 138 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
Kryder v. State
194 S.E. 890 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
106 S.E. 601, 26 Ga. App. 259, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loyd-v-state-gactapp-1921.