Woody v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Woody v. State

140 S.E. 396, 37 Ga. App. 338, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 658

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 15, 1927

Docket18450

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 140 S.E. 396 (Woody 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

Woody v. State, 140 S.E. 396, 37 Ga. App. 338, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 658 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. The defendant was indicted for the offense of assault with intent to murder and convicted of shooting at another. He contends in the special grounds of his motion for a new trial that the evidence, if believed by the jury, authorized his conviction of assault with intent to murder, but did not authorize his conviction of shooting' at another, or the judge’s charge thereon. Under the proof in this case it was not error to give the jury “the discretion to convict of the lower offense included in the higher felony charged, if they believed the evidence did not show a specific intent to kill.” Autrey v. State, 24 Ga. App. 415 (100 S. E. 782). See also Espy v. State, 19 Ga. App. 743 (92 S. E. 229).

2. “Evidence that the appearance bond of the defendant had been forfeited was admissible as tending to show flight.” Jones v. State, 26 Ga. App. 635 (3) (107 S. E. 166).

3. The evidence supports the verdict, .and for no reason assigned did the court err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworih, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

1. The defendant was indicted for the offense of assault with intent to murder and convicted of shooting at another. He contends in the special grounds of his motion for a new trial that the evidence, if believed by the jury, authorized his conviction of assault with intent to murder, but did not authorize his conviction of shooting' at another, or the judge’s charge thereon. Under the proof in this case it was not error to give the jury “the discretion to convict of the lower offense included in the higher felony charged, if they believed the evidence did not show a specific intent to kill.” Autrey v. State, 24 Ga. App. 415 (100 S. E. 782). See also Espy v. State, 19 Ga. App. 743 (92 S. E. 229).

2. “Evidence that the appearance bond of the defendant had been forfeited was admissible as tending to show flight.” Jones v. State, 26 Ga. App. 635 (3) (107 S. E. 166).

3. The evidence supports the verdict, .and for no reason assigned did the court err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworih, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 S.E. 396, 37 Ga. App. 338, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woody-v-state-gactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack