Ward v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ward v. State

100 S.E. 576, 24 Ga. App. 274, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 555

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 14, 1919

Docket10606

StatusPublished

This text of 100 S.E. 576 (Ward 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

Ward v. State, 100 S.E. 576, 24 Ga. App. 274, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 555 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The evidence in this case fully authorized, if indeed it did not demand, the verdict of manslaughter.

The charge given by the court on the law of manslaughter was required. See Trice v. State, 89 Ga. 742 (15 S. E. 648). The court did not err in charging the'jury as follows: “In every ease of an unlawful killing malice will be presumed, wheze no considerable provocation appears and all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. If one shoots another without any reason, and, although you may not be able to show that he made up his mind to do so with any degree of deliberation, if he shoots another without any known reason, and all the circumstances show that he did so wantonly, without any reason, without any provocation, the law implies malice in a ease of that sort.” See Harrell v. State, 22 Ga. App. 104 (95 S. E. 537), and [275]*275case cited. The defendant had a fair trial, was ably represented, and no error appears which authorizes a new trial.

Decided October 14, 1919.

Indictment for murder; from Bibb superior court—Judge Mathews. April 22, 1919.

John B. Cooper, C. M. Cunningham, W. 0. Cooper Jr., for plaintiff in error. John P. Boss, solicitor-general, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Blood/worth, J., eoneur.

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

Luke, J.

The evidence in this case fully authorized, if indeed it did not demand, the verdict of manslaughter.

The charge given by the court on the law of manslaughter was required. See Trice v. State, 89 Ga. 742 (15 S. E. 648). The court did not err in charging the'jury as follows: “In every ease of an unlawful killing malice will be presumed, wheze no considerable provocation appears and all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. If one shoots another without any reason, and, although you may not be able to show that he made up his mind to do so with any degree of deliberation, if he shoots another without any known reason, and all the circumstances show that he did so wantonly, without any reason, without any provocation, the law implies malice in a ease of that sort.” See Harrell v. State, 22 Ga. App. 104 (95 S. E. 537), and [275]*275case cited. The defendant had a fair trial, was ably represented, and no error appears which authorizes a new trial.

Decided October 14, 1919.

Indictment for murder; from Bibb superior court—Judge Mathews. April 22, 1919.

John B. Cooper, C. M. Cunningham, W. 0. Cooper Jr., for plaintiff in error. John P. Boss, solicitor-general, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Blood/worth, J., eoneur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 S.E. 576, 24 Ga. App. 274, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-state-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack