Watson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Watson v. State

17 S.E.2d 559, 66 Ga. App. 242, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 190

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 7, 1941

Docket29206.

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 17 S.E.2d 559 (Watson 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

Watson v. State, 17 S.E.2d 559, 66 Ga. App. 242, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 190 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinions

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of an assault with intent to murder. His motion for a new trial, consisting of the general grounds and one special ground, was overruled. The evidence, while conflicting, authorized the verdict. The special ground assigns error on the failure of the court to give in charge to the jury the law of voluntary manslaughter as related to mutual combat or mutual intention to fight The court instructed the jury on the law of assault with intent to murder, on the general law of voluntary manslaughter, and on the law of unlawfully shooting at another, but did not charge the law of mutual combat. There are many decisions of the Supreme Court and this court which hold that where there is evidence tending to show that the parties were engaged in a mutual combat, it is error for the judge to fail to charge the law of mutual combat, even though he charged generally on the law of voluntary manslaughter. However, in this case we do not think that the evidence tended to show that the parties engaged in a mutual combat. Mutual combat does not mean a mere fist fight or scuffle. It usually means an encounter with deadly weapons, in which the death of either or both of the parties is imminent. Such a combat must be mutual; both parties must be armed with deadly or dangerous weapons and have a mutual intention to use them. In this case the undisputed evidence shows that the accused had a deadly weapon, a loaded pistol, concealed on his person, and that the person shot and seriously wounded had no weapon of any kind in his hands or on his person. The two men had a sudden quarrel and a scuffle, the defendant was pulled down on the floor by the other man, the defendant falling underneath the other man, and immediately the defendant drew his pistol and shot the man in his face. Hnder these facts we are of the opinion that the law of mutual combat was not involved and that the failure of the court to charge it was not error, and especially so since the court not only instructed the jury generally on the law of voluntary manslaughter, but specifically on the lesser offense of unlawfully shooting at another. The denial of a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of an assault with intent to murder. His motion for a new trial, consisting of the general grounds and one special ground, was overruled. The evidence, while conflicting, authorized the verdict. The special ground assigns error on the failure of the court to give in charge to the jury the law of voluntary manslaughter as related to mutual combat or mutual intention to fight The court instructed the jury on the law of assault with intent to murder, on the general law of voluntary manslaughter, and on the law of unlawfully shooting at another, but did not charge the law of mutual combat. There are many decisions of the Supreme Court and this court which hold that where there is evidence tending to show that the parties were engaged in a mutual combat, it is error for the judge to fail to charge the law of mutual combat, even though he charged generally on the law of voluntary manslaughter. However, in this case we do not think that the evidence tended to show that the parties engaged in a mutual combat. Mutual combat does not mean a mere fist fight or scuffle. It usually means an encounter with deadly weapons, in which the death of either or both of the parties is imminent. Such a combat must be mutual; both parties must be armed with deadly or dangerous weapons and have a mutual intention to use them. In this case the undisputed evidence shows that the accused had a deadly weapon, a loaded pistol, concealed on his person, and that the person shot and seriously wounded had no weapon of any kind in his hands or on his person. The two men had a sudden quarrel and a scuffle, the defendant was pulled down on the floor by the other man, the defendant falling underneath the other man, and immediately the defendant drew his pistol and shot the man in his face. Hnder these facts we are of the opinion that the law of mutual combat was not involved and that the failure of the court to charge it was not error, and especially so since the court not only instructed the jury generally on the law of voluntary manslaughter, but specifically on the lesser offense of unlawfully shooting at another. The denial of a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 S.E.2d 559, 66 Ga. App. 242, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-state-gactapp-1941.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack