Sheffield v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sheffield v. State

85 S.E. 253, 16 Ga. App. 287, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 587

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 4, 1915

Docket6308

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 85 S.E. 253 (Sheffield 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

Sheffield v. State, 85 S.E. 253, 16 Ga. App. 287, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 587 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

1. To authorize a conviction of voluntary manslaughter, “there must he some actual assault upon the person killing, or an attempt hy the person killed to commit a serious personal injury on the person killing, or other equivalent circumstances to justify the excitement of passion, and to exclude all idea of deliberation or malice, either expressed or implied.” Penal Code, § 65. As brothers have the right of mutual protection under the law (Penal Code, § 74), an actual assault by the person killed upon the brother of the person killing, or an attempt by the person killed to commit a serious personal injury upon the brother of the person killing, is included within the above provision — “or other equivalent circumstances.” Warnack v. State, 3 Ga. App. 590 (60 S. E. 288); Armistead v. State, 18 Ga. 704 (3).

2. The jury might well have found the defendant guilty of murder, but, there being some evidence from which they could infer that the defendant, while in a sudden heat of passion, aroused by seeing his brother and the deceased quarreling, and by the sudden and accidental discharge of a pistol in the hands of the deceased, shot and killed the deceased, the verdict of voluntary manslaughter is authorized by the evidence.

3. No error of law is complained of, and the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

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

Broyles, J.

1. To authorize a conviction of voluntary manslaughter, “there must he some actual assault upon the person killing, or an attempt hy the person killed to commit a serious personal injury on the person killing, or other equivalent circumstances to justify the excitement of passion, and to exclude all idea of deliberation or malice, either expressed or implied.” Penal Code, § 65. As brothers have the right of mutual protection under the law (Penal Code, § 74), an actual assault by the person killed upon the brother of the person killing, or an attempt by the person killed to commit a serious personal injury upon the brother of the person killing, is included within the above provision — “or other equivalent circumstances.” Warnack v. State, 3 Ga. App. 590 (60 S. E. 288); Armistead v. State, 18 Ga. 704 (3).

2. The jury might well have found the defendant guilty of murder, but, there being some evidence from which they could infer that the defendant, while in a sudden heat of passion, aroused by seeing his brother and the deceased quarreling, and by the sudden and accidental discharge of a pistol in the hands of the deceased, shot and killed the deceased, the verdict of voluntary manslaughter is authorized by the evidence.

3. No error of law is complained of, and the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 S.E. 253, 16 Ga. App. 287, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheffield-v-state-gactapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack