Bottoms v. State, 22843.
Decision Date | 05 April 1933 |
Docket Number | No. 22843.,22843. |
Citation | 46 Ga.App. 682,168 S.E. 918 |
Parties | BOTTOMS . v. STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
.
Syllabus by the Court.
Considered in its entirety, the charge of the court fairly presented the law of the case. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Error from Superior Court, Pike County; Wm. E. H. Searcy, Jr., Judge.
Bryant Bottoms was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
C. A. Byars, of Griffin, and J. W. Culpepper, of Fayetteville, for plaintiff in error.
R. C. Johnson, Jr., of Zebulon, and E. M. Owen, and W. H. Connor, Sols. Gen., both of Griffin, for the State.
The indictment charged that Bryant Bottoms murdered J. B. Wood. He was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and he assigns error on the overruling of his motion for a new trial.
The circumstances of the homicide, as shown by an abundance of evidence, are as follows: Wood, an officer, was in his automobile on Sunday morning, in front of Mr. Scott's store in Williamson, Ga. "Bryant Bottoms drove up and parked his automobile within 15 or 20 feet of Mr. Wood, and got out and walked directly to the car where Mr. Wood was." He put his foot on the running board of Mr. Wood's car and said to Mr. Wood, "Somebody has told some damned lies." Wood got out of his car. There was then some discussion about a negro, and Wood The deceased, being an officer, had a pistol, and yet, according to the undisputed evidence, he never drew it out during the entire difficulty. After the defendant had been disarmed and after the deceased had been shot, he did knock the defendant down several times, but used only his hands. The undisputed evidence also-showed that the defendant was drinking. Numerous witnesses testified that the deceased tried to get the defendant to go home and sober up, and then take up the discussion, after he was sober. The foregoing does not purport to be all the evidence, but is suffi-cient for the purposes of this opinion. Summing up, there was abundant evidence to authorize the jury to conclude that the defend ant fortified his courage with liquor, armed himself with a pistol, came to the deceased, and provoked the difficulty by insulting him in such a way as to force the deceased to. resent it, and that when deceased did re-sent it by stopping defendant With bis open hand, the defendant, instead of retaliating with similar force, shot him twice, which shooting resulted in his death. The defendant made no attempt to explain why he had the pistol, or to deny that he was drinking. The general grounds of the motion for a new trial show no cause for a reversal.
Two special grounds of the motion complain of the following excerpts from the charge: "If you say that, situated and circumstanced and surrounded as he was at the time, there existed a danger, either real or apparent, that he would have an injury...
To continue reading
Request your trial