Rhodes v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rhodes v. State

13 S.E.2d 201, 64 Ga. App. 367, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 63

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 11, 1941

Docket28786.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 13 S.E.2d 201 (Rhodes 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

Rhodes v. State, 13 S.E.2d 201, 64 Ga. App. 367, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 63 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, J.

1. While the failure to charge on the principle of the burden being on the State to prove the defendant’s guilt, coupled with the further failure to instruct as to the extent of the proof to be beyond a reasonable doubt, would require a reversal (Adams v. State, 25 Ga. App. 12, 102 S. E. 372), an omission to charge on the “burden” is not error when the court does charge that the defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless the evidence satisfies the jury of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that if they have a reasonable doubt of his guilt they should acquit him. Such charge in effect sufficiently informs the jury that the burden of proof is on the State. Neal v. State, 26 Ga. App. 647 (2) (106 S. E. 913). Amplification of the definition of “reasonable doubt” is not required in the absence of a timely written request. Faulkner v. State, 43 Ga. App. 763, 767 (160 S. E. 117).

2. A defendant is “entitled to the presumption of innocence throughout the trial, which could only be overcome by proof of his guilt of the crime alleged, beyond a reasonable doubt.” King v. State, 163 Ga. 313 (3) (136 S. E. 154). It is reversible error, though not so in the absence of a timely written request (Wages v. State, 56 Ga. App. 365 (3), 192 S. E. 652), to fail to charge the jury that “the defendant enters upon the trial with the presumption of innocence in his favor, and that this presumption remains with him until overcome by evidence sufficient to satisfy the jury of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Townsend v. State, 14 Ga. App. 757 (82 S. E. 253), and cit. The court in the instant ease did not err in charging the jury, in the absence of a timely .written request, that “in law the defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless the evidence satisfies your minds beyond a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.”

The remaining assignments of error are without merit. The court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Gardner, J.

1. While the failure to charge on the principle of the burden being on the State to prove the defendant’s guilt, coupled with the further failure to instruct as to the extent of the proof to be beyond a reasonable doubt, would require a reversal (Adams v. State, 25 Ga. App. 12, 102 S. E. 372), an omission to charge on the “burden” is not error when the court does charge that the defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless the evidence satisfies the jury of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that if they have a reasonable doubt of his guilt they should acquit him. Such charge in effect sufficiently informs the jury that the burden of proof is on the State. Neal v. State, 26 Ga. App. 647 (2) (106 S. E. 913). Amplification of the definition of “reasonable doubt” is not required in the absence of a timely written request. Faulkner v. State, 43 Ga. App. 763, 767 (160 S. E. 117).

2. A defendant is “entitled to the presumption of innocence throughout the trial, which could only be overcome by proof of his guilt of the crime alleged, beyond a reasonable doubt.” King v. State, 163 Ga. 313 (3) (136 S. E. 154). It is reversible error, though not so in the absence of a timely written request (Wages v. State, 56 Ga. App. 365 (3), 192 S. E. 652), to fail to charge the jury that “the defendant enters upon the trial with the presumption of innocence in his favor, and that this presumption remains with him until overcome by evidence sufficient to satisfy the jury of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Townsend v. State, 14 Ga. App. 757 (82 S. E. 253), and cit. The court in the instant ease did not err in charging the jury, in the absence of a timely .written request, that “in law the defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless the evidence satisfies your minds beyond a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.”

The remaining assignments of error are without merit. The court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 S.E.2d 201, 64 Ga. App. 367, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rhodes-v-state-gactapp-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack