Nance v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Nance v. State

120 S.E. 639, 31 Ga. App. 121, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 774

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 13, 1923

Docket15007

StatusPublished

This text of 120 S.E. 639 (Nance 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

Nance v. State, 120 S.E. 639, 31 Ga. App. 121, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 774 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, O. J.

1. Conceding (but not deciding) that under the facts of the case the jury should have been instructed, even without a timely and appropriate written request, that in reaching their verdict they could consider any disparity in the size and strength of the defendant and the person alleged to have been stabbed by him, if any<such disparity had been shown by the evidence (Strickland v. State, 98 Ga. 84, 25 S. E. 908; but see Alexander v. State, 118 Ga. 26 (3), 28, 44 S. E. 85; Barnes v. State, 24 Ga. App. 373 (6), 100 S. E. 788), it appears from the record that the jury must have understood, from the charge of the court and the colloquy between the court and defendant’s counsel, that they had the authority to consider the relative sizes and strength of the defendant and the person alleged to have been stabbed. This . being true, and there having been no written request for a specific charge on the subject, there was no harmful error on the part of the court.

2. The excerpts from the charge of the court, complained of, when considered in connection with the entire charge and the facts of the case, contain no material error.

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the overruling of the motion for a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luhe and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. Maddox, McCamy & McFarland, for plaintiff in error. J. M. Lang, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Broyles, O. J.

1. Conceding (but not deciding) that under the facts of the case the jury should have been instructed, even without a timely and appropriate written request, that in reaching their verdict they could consider any disparity in the size and strength of the defendant and the person alleged to have been stabbed by him, if any<such disparity had been shown by the evidence (Strickland v. State, 98 Ga. 84, 25 S. E. 908; but see Alexander v. State, 118 Ga. 26 (3), 28, 44 S. E. 85; Barnes v. State, 24 Ga. App. 373 (6), 100 S. E. 788), it appears from the record that the jury must have understood, from the charge of the court and the colloquy between the court and defendant’s counsel, that they had the authority to consider the relative sizes and strength of the defendant and the person alleged to have been stabbed. This . being true, and there having been no written request for a specific charge on the subject, there was no harmful error on the part of the court.

2. The excerpts from the charge of the court, complained of, when considered in connection with the entire charge and the facts of the case, contain no material error.

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the overruling of the motion for a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luhe and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. Maddox, McCamy & McFarland, for plaintiff in error. J. M. Lang, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 S.E. 639, 31 Ga. App. 121, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nance-v-state-gactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack