Bowen v. State, 10948.
| Citation | 182 S.E. 510,181 Ga. 427 |
| Decision Date | 14 November 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 10948.,10948. |
| Parties | BOWEN. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Error from Superior Court, Douglas County; J. R. Hutcheson, Judge.
E. B. Bowen brings error.
Affirmed.
L. Z. Dorsett and Otis L. Davis, both of Douglasville, for plaintiff in error.
Hal C. Hutchens, Sol. Gen, of Dallas, Astor Merritt, of Douglasville, M. J. Yeomans, Atty. Gen, B. D. Murphy, Asst. Atty. Gen, and E. J. Clower, of Atlanta, for the State.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. The court did not err in refusing a request to charge "that each juror should decide for himself upon his oath what his verdict should be, and that no juror should yield his deliberate conscientious convictions as to what his verdict should be, either by the instance of a fellow-juror or of the majority; that no juror should yield his honest convictions for the sake of unanimity, or to avert the disaster of a mistrial." The jury arc to act as a body, and should be charged as a body. The individual jurors are not to be addressed in a way to discourage men-tal harmony and concert, and it is not incumbent on the court to stimulate their individuality by charging that each juror should decide for himself what his verdict should be. Smith v. State, 63 Ga. 168, 170; Fogarty v. State, 80 Ga. 450 (3), 454, 5 S. E. 782.
2. The defendant assigned as error the refusal of a request to charge as follows: "I charge you that the accused would not be guilty if the killing was done under some irresistible impulse, the result of a diseased and disordered mind, which overcame his will and took away his power of self-control, provided the act itself was connected with the particular delusion, if any, under which he was laboring at that time." The judge charged the jury as to insanity, in part, as follows: In view of the charge as thus given, the court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury as requested. See Roberts v. State, 3 Ga. 310 (3); Carr v. State, 96 Ga. 284, 22 S. E. 570; Mars v. State, 163 Ga. 43 (4), 51, 135 S. E. 410; Har-groves v. State, 179 Ga. 722 (3), 177 S. E. 561.
3. A conspiracy may be shown by direct as well as circumstantial evidence. The evidence authorized the charge on the law "of conspiracy. Chance v. State, 156...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
House v. State
...timely request, it was not error for the court to fail to charge on circumstantial evidence as provided in Code § 38-109. Bowen v. State, 181 Ga. 427, 429, 182 S.E. 510; Harris v. State, 207 Ga. 287(2), 61 S.E.2d 135; Gentry v. State, 208 Ga. 370(2), 66 S.E.2d 913; McGruder v. State, 213 Ga......
-
Smith v. State
...on the law of circumstantial evidence, without request, was error. Strickland v. State, 167 Ga. 452(1), 145 S.E. 879; Bowen v. State, 181 Ga. 427(4), 182 S.E 510; Blocker v. State, 185 Ga. 322(2), 195 S.E. 207; Powfell v. State, 193 Ga. 398(3), 18 S.E.2d 678; Booth v. State, 198 Ga. 648(1),......
-
Smith v. State
...on the law of circumstantial evidence, without request, was error. Strickland v. State, 167 Ga. 452(1), 145 S.E. 879; Bowen v. State, 181 Ga. 427(4), 182 S.E. 510; Blocker v. State, 185 Ga. 322(2), 195 S.E. Powell v. State, 193 Ga. 398(3), 18 S.E.2d 678; Booth v. State, 198 Ga. 648(1), 32 S......
-
Jones v. State
...His statement and those of his co-defendants regarding the murder were direct, rather than circumstantial, evidence. Bowen v. State, 181 Ga. 427(4), 182 S.E. 510 (1935); Henderson v. State, 210 Ga. 680(1), 82 S.E.2d 638 Northcutt v. State, 228 Ga. 653, 187 S.E.2d 260 (1972). The medical tes......