Oglesby v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Oglesby v. State

78 S.E. 134, 12 Ga. App. 684, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 703

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 6, 1913

Docket4763

StatusPublished

This text of 78 S.E. 134 (Oglesby 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

Oglesby v. State, 78 S.E. 134, 12 Ga. App. 684, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 703 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Pottle, J.

1. Two persons were convicted of riot. The evidence for the State shows that the accused went to the home of their father, and, while one of them was engaged in a controversy with their mother,, the father approached and directed that the controversy cease. Thereupon the other son, who was standing by, directed his brother to run for his gun, saying that he had his own gun, and at the same time indulging in violent, profane, and' abusive language, accompanied by threats to kill their father, and telling his brother that when he got the gun they would shoot their father. The son to whom 'the direction was given went away and shortly returned with his gun, and, while the other son was still present, used toward his father violent, profane, abusive, and threatening.language, which was heard two or three hundred yards away. Held, that a common intent and concert of action were sufficiently shown, and that the conviction of both of the accused was authorized. Penal Code, § 360; Green v. State, 109 Ga. 536 (35 S. E. 97); Grier v. State, 11 Ga. App. 767 (76 S. E. 70).

2. No material error of law was committed. The trial judge having once .rejected testimony that one of the accused whipped his wife, and, when the evidence was again offered, having stated in the hearing of the jury that he would instruct them to disregard it, his failure thereafter to expressly give such an instruction is not cause for a new trial. The ■ evidence..other than the prisoner’s .statement demanded the conviction, and the charge of the court on the subject pi riot was sufficient, in the absence of request for more specific instructions. Nor was it reversible error that the judge charged the jury to ascertain whether the in- • mates of the house were put in fear by the conduct of the accused, without explaining what degree of fear the law requires.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Pottle, J.

1. Two persons were convicted of riot. The evidence for the State shows that the accused went to the home of their father, and, while one of them was engaged in a controversy with their mother,, the father approached and directed that the controversy cease. Thereupon the other son, who was standing by, directed his brother to run for his gun, saying that he had his own gun, and at the same time indulging in violent, profane, and' abusive language, accompanied by threats to kill their father, and telling his brother that when he got the gun they would shoot their father. The son to whom 'the direction was given went away and shortly returned with his gun, and, while the other son was still present, used toward his father violent, profane, abusive, and threatening.language, which was heard two or three hundred yards away. Held, that a common intent and concert of action were sufficiently shown, and that the conviction of both of the accused was authorized. Penal Code, § 360; Green v. State, 109 Ga. 536 (35 S. E. 97); Grier v. State, 11 Ga. App. 767 (76 S. E. 70).

2. No material error of law was committed. The trial judge having once .rejected testimony that one of the accused whipped his wife, and, when the evidence was again offered, having stated in the hearing of the jury that he would instruct them to disregard it, his failure thereafter to expressly give such an instruction is not cause for a new trial. The ■ evidence..other than the prisoner’s .statement demanded the conviction, and the charge of the court on the subject pi riot was sufficient, in the absence of request for more specific instructions. Nor was it reversible error that the judge charged the jury to ascertain whether the in- • mates of the house were put in fear by the conduct of the accused, without explaining what degree of fear the law requires.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 S.E. 134, 12 Ga. App. 684, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oglesby-v-state-gactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack