Ward v. State

191 S.E. 916, 184 Ga. 566, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 557
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMay 18, 1937
DocketNo. 11816
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 191 S.E. 916 (Ward v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ward v. State, 191 S.E. 916, 184 Ga. 566, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 557 (Ga. 1937).

Opinion

Hutcheson, Justice.

1. It is only where the evidence is entirely circumstantial that the court is required, without request, to charge the jury on the law of circumstantial evidence. Brannon v. State, 140 Ga. 787 (7) (80 S. E. 7). There being direct evidence in the present case on all the essential elements of the crime charged, the failure of the court to charge the jury on the law of circumstantial evidence does not furnish cause for the grant of a new trial. Wilson v. State, 152 Ga. 337 (110 S. E. 8); Long v. State, 175 Ga. 274 (165 S. E. 75); Harris v. State, 178 Ga. 746 (174 S. E. 240).

2. The evidence in behalf of the State tended to show that the accused murdered the deceased, his stepdaughter, by stomping her with his feet. The only defense set up by the accused was that he did not stomp her; that his wife told him she was run into by an automobile. In such circumstances the instruction on the law of self-defense, by reading to the jury Code, § 26-1011, if not applicable to any theory of the case, was not harmful to the accused, and therefore was not cause for a new trial. See Green v. State, 153 Ga. 215 (4) (111 S. E. 916); Tate v. State, 46 Ga. 148; Cato v. State, 72 Ga. 747 (3). Compare Garland v. State, 124 Ga. 832 (2), 834 (53 S. E. 314); Floyd v. State, 182 Ga. 549 (2) (186 S. E. 556).

3. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Russeee, Chief Justice, and Atkinson, Justice, who dissent on the ground that the judge under the evidence should have charged, without request, on the law relating to circumstantial evidence. Newton Gaslcins and J. B. Moore, for plaintiff in error. M. J. Yeomans, attorney-general, W. B. Gibbs, solicitor-general, Ellis G. Arnall, and E. J. Glower, contra.

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

Related

Lee v. State
338 S.E.2d 445 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1985)
Murray v. State
39 S.E.2d 842 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1946)
Patterson v. State
199 Ga. 773 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1945)
Williams v. State
34 S.E.2d 854 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1945)
Ross v. State
22 S.E.2d 148 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
Weaver v. State
21 S.E.2d 542 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Jester v. State
17 S.E.2d 736 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)
Claybourn v. State
11 S.E.2d 23 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Walton v. State
10 S.E.2d 755 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Geer v. State
193 S.E. 776 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
191 S.E. 916, 184 Ga. 566, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-state-ga-1937.