Burns v. State, 51019
| Decision Date | 26 September 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 51019,No. 3,51019,3 |
| Citation | 135 Ga.App. 842,219 S.E.2d 487 |
| Parties | Charles BURNS v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Durden, Durden & Allen, Rodney L. Allen, Albany, for appellant.
William S. Lee, Dist. Atty., Daniel MacDougald, III, Asst. Dist. Atty., Albany, for appellee.
Defendant was convicted of aggravated battery in shooting the victim in the leg and causing its amputation. He was sentenced to serve a sentence of ten years in prison. Defendant appeals. Held:
1. Defendant admitted shooting the victim with a .410 shotgun, but contended he was justified, being in fear of his life. The evidence was in conflict as to whether or not the defendant was justified in shooting the victim in the leg. Defendant contends the state's witnesses were impeached and his were unimpeached; hence, the verdict was contrary to evidence and the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. But questions of credibility and impeachment are for jury determination and there was evidence to support the findings of guilty. Code §§ 38-1805, 38-1806; Cook v. State, 13 Ga.App. 308(3), 79 S.E. 87; Hagin v. Rogers, 17 Ga.App. 515, 87 S.E. 769; Hawkins v. State, 20 Ga.App. 179(1), 92 S.E. 958. There is no merit in this enumeration of error.
2. After the shooting, the defendant fled the scene. He admitted he left the scene but offered testimony to explain his reasons. There was sufficient evidence to support the charge by the court on flight.
3. The court correctly charged on the contentions of the defendant as to justification, but then added that defendant contends: 'he has not done anything wrong and that he had not committed any offense against the State.' In thus charging the jury, the court placed a greater burden upon the defendant than that of defending himself against the charge of aggravated battery.
The State had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of aggravated battery. Defendant had no burden whatever of proving himself not guilty. Under the quoted charge, the jury could have convicted defendant if they believed from the evidence that he had: 1. Done anything wrong. 2. Committed any offense (whether aggravated assault or some other offense) against the State. See Henderson v. State, 134 Ga.App. 898, 216 S.E.2d 696.
4. An erroneous charge is presumed to be harmful as a matter of law unless it appears to have no effect upon the result of the trial. See Rogers v. Johnson, 94...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Avery v. State
...effect. Henderson v. State, 134 Ga.App. 898, 216 S.E.2d 696; Graham v. State, 135 Ga.App. 825, 219 S.E.2d 477; 2 Burns v. State, 135 Ga.App. 842, 219 S.E.2d 487. The court's failure to instruct the jury, either in the charge or upon the jury's request, that the State must prove sanity beyon......
-
Collins v. State
...of guilty, convinces us that the error was harmless and did not have an effect upon the outcome of the trial. See Burns v. State, 135 Ga.App. 842(4), 219 S.E.2d 487." Avery v. State, 141 Ga.App. 92, 93(4), 232 S.E.2d 618, 619 Although the language objected to here, as in Avery, was midway i......
-
Moran v. State
...but merely explained to the jury the contentions of the appellant. (Braden was reversed on other grounds.) Lastly, in Burns v. State, 135 Ga.App. 842(3), 219 S.E.2d 487, almost precisely the same charge was held to be burden shifting requiring the grant of a new Examination of the Henderson......
-
Moore v. State
...doubt of all critical essential elements of the crime, remains with the state throughout the trial and it never shifts. Burns v. State, 135 Ga.App. 842(3), 219 S.E.2d 487. While the defense of alibi is not a so-called affirmative defense, both Patterson v. State, 233 Ga. 724, 213 S.E.2d 612......