Bradford v. State

• Decision Date: 16 March 1921
• Docket Number: (No. 2290.)
• Citation: 151 Ga. 334,106 S.E. 718
• Parties: BRADFORD. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

151 Ga. 334

106 S.E. 718

BRADFORD.

v.STATE.

(No. 2290.)

Supreme Court of Georgia.

March 16, 1921.

(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Error from Superior Court, Wilkes County; B. F. Walker, Judge.

Will Bradford was convicted of murder and brings error. Affirmed.

Some of the grounds for new trial were as follows:

IV. Because the court erred in charging the jury as follows: "If, after going over all the evidence, facts, and circumstances of the case, applying the rules of law given you in charge theretofore, if you have resting on your minds a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant, you should give him the benefit of that doubt and acquit him. Now, when I say a reasonable doubt, the law does not mean some mere vague conjecture or possibility that might arise, but such a doubt as arises in an honest juror's mind, seeking for the truth, and leaves it wavering and in doubt. It may arise from having heard the evidence, the want, weakness, or insufficiency of the evidence. In this connection the law does not mean nor are you required as trial jurors before you find the defendant guilty, you must find him guilty to a mathematical certainty. Moral and reasonable certainty is all that the law requires. So, if in this case, if you should find the defendant guilty to a moral and reasonable certainty, and that beyond a reasonable doubt, it would be your duty to find the defendant guilty; if not, it would be equally your duty to acquit him."

The defendant excepts to this charge because the said charge excluded from the minds of the jury the statement of the defendant, or had that tendency. The defendant contends that the court nowhere in its charge to the jury instructed them on the defendant's contention on the trial of the case. The defendant contended in his statement before the jury that the homicide was accidentally committed through misfortune, accident, and misadventure, so the foregoing charge excluded forever from the minds of the jury the defendant's statements and contention in the case. The court nowhere in its charge to the jury instructed them on the defendant's contention on the trial of the case. The court nowhere in its charge to the jury referred to the contention of the defendant and simply charged on accidental homicide without charging the contention of the defendant in his statement. For all of these reasons the defendant assigns the foregoing charge as error.

V. Because the court erred in charging the jury as follows: "In all civil cases the...