Stephens v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Stephens v. State

87 S.E. 825, 17 Ga. App. 542, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 767

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 27, 1916

Docket7061

StatusPublished

This text of 87 S.E. 825 (Stephens 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

Stephens v. State, 87 S.E. 825, 17 Ga. App. 542, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 767 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

1. Under the facts of this case, the defendant had no right to shoot at the policemen, who were endeavoring to arrest him both on a charge of contempt of court and for a previous violation of a city ordinance (not committed in their presence), although the officers had no warrant or attachment for his arrest; it not appearing that it was necessary for the accused, who was running from the officers at the time, to shoot at them in order to prevent himself from being illegally arrested.

2. In the light of the evidence, the excerpts from the charge of the court to which exceptions are taken contain no reversible error.

3. The verdict was fully authorized by the evidence, and the court 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. Under the facts of this case, the defendant had no right to shoot at the policemen, who were endeavoring to arrest him both on a charge of contempt of court and for a previous violation of a city ordinance (not committed in their presence), although the officers had no warrant or attachment for his arrest; it not appearing that it was necessary for the accused, who was running from the officers at the time, to shoot at them in order to prevent himself from being illegally arrested.

2. In the light of the evidence, the excerpts from the charge of the court to which exceptions are taken contain no reversible error.

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

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.E. 825, 17 Ga. App. 542, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephens-v-state-gactapp-1916.