Persons v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Persons v. State

110 S.E. 749, 28 Ga. App. 232, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 416

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 14, 1922

Docket13188

StatusPublished

This text of 110 S.E. 749 (Persons 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

Persons v. State, 110 S.E. 749, 28 Ga. App. 232, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 416 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The accused was charged with murder and convicted of voluntary manslaughter. While there was evidence for the State which would have amply authorized the defendant’s conviction of murder, and while the statement of the accused, who introduced no evidence, tended to show that the homicide was justifiable, the jury were authorized to find from [233]*233some of the evidence fox the State, considered in connection with parts of the defendant’s statement, that both the accused and the deceased, while engaged in an angry dispute, drew pistols, and that each, willing and intending to fight, in hot blood and without malice, endeavored to shoot the other, and that the deceased was killed in such rencounter. It follows, therefore, that it was not error for the court to instruct the jury upon the law of mutual combat. Matthews v. State, 136 Ga. 125 (70 S. E. 1110.) See also Findley v. State, 125 Ga. 579, 583 (54 S. E. 106), and citations; Giles v. State, 126 Ga. 549 (55 S. E. 405); Clements v. State, 140 Ga. 165 (2), 166 (78 S. E. 716); Higgs v. State, 148 Ga 136 (95 S. E. 994); Fordham v. State, 24 Ga. App. 369 (100 S. E. 790); Harris v. State, 152 Ga. 199 (108 S. E. 781).

2. The ground of the motion for a new trial which was based upon alleged newly discovered evidence is not referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error and is treated as abandoned.

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The accused was charged with murder and convicted of voluntary manslaughter. While there was evidence for the State which would have amply authorized the defendant’s conviction of murder, and while the statement of the accused, who introduced no evidence, tended to show that the homicide was justifiable, the jury were authorized to find from [233]*233some of the evidence fox the State, considered in connection with parts of the defendant’s statement, that both the accused and the deceased, while engaged in an angry dispute, drew pistols, and that each, willing and intending to fight, in hot blood and without malice, endeavored to shoot the other, and that the deceased was killed in such rencounter. It follows, therefore, that it was not error for the court to instruct the jury upon the law of mutual combat. Matthews v. State, 136 Ga. 125 (70 S. E. 1110.) See also Findley v. State, 125 Ga. 579, 583 (54 S. E. 106), and citations; Giles v. State, 126 Ga. 549 (55 S. E. 405); Clements v. State, 140 Ga. 165 (2), 166 (78 S. E. 716); Higgs v. State, 148 Ga 136 (95 S. E. 994); Fordham v. State, 24 Ga. App. 369 (100 S. E. 790); Harris v. State, 152 Ga. 199 (108 S. E. 781).

2. The ground of the motion for a new trial which was based upon alleged newly discovered evidence is not referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error and is treated as abandoned.

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 S.E. 749, 28 Ga. App. 232, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/persons-v-state-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack