Perry v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Perry v. State

68 S.E. 864, 8 Ga. App. 181, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 89

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 6, 1910

Docket2298

StatusPublished

This text of 68 S.E. 864 (Perry 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

Perry v. State, 68 S.E. 864, 8 Ga. App. 181, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 89 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Hili, C. J.

In the main, the trial was fair and free from error, hut the court erred in limiting the defendant’s right to strike the prosecutor to his own personal self-defense. It appearing that the defendant was a member of a posse attempting to arrest the prosecutor, and that the prosecutor was making, or attempting to make, a general attack upon the posse, and that the defendant’s superior officer ordered him to strike the prosecutor, at a time when, as the jury would have been authorized to find, the prosecutor was manifesting a present purpose to do violence to one or more of the árresting parties, the defendant should have had his right to strike in defense of his fellow officers submitted to the jury.

Judgment reversed.

Indictment for assault and battery; from Early superior court-judge Worrill. November 22, 1909.

Glessner & Park, for plaintiff in error. J. A. Laing, solicitor-general, Reuben R. Arnold, contra.

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

Hili, C. J.

In the main, the trial was fair and free from error, hut the court erred in limiting the defendant’s right to strike the prosecutor to his own personal self-defense. It appearing that the defendant was a member of a posse attempting to arrest the prosecutor, and that the prosecutor was making, or attempting to make, a general attack upon the posse, and that the defendant’s superior officer ordered him to strike the prosecutor, at a time when, as the jury would have been authorized to find, the prosecutor was manifesting a present purpose to do violence to one or more of the árresting parties, the defendant should have had his right to strike in defense of his fellow officers submitted to the jury.

Judgment reversed.

Indictment for assault and battery; from Early superior court-judge Worrill. November 22, 1909.

Glessner & Park, for plaintiff in error. J. A. Laing, solicitor-general, Reuben R. Arnold, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 S.E. 864, 8 Ga. App. 181, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perry-v-state-gactapp-1910.