Cain v. State, 25464.
| Decision Date | 01 May 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 25464.,25464. |
| Citation | 53 Ga.App. 331,185 S.E. 615 |
| Parties | CAIN. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where one is charged in an indictment with the offense of involuntary manslaughter in the commission of an unlawful act, a verdict of the jury that is a verdict finding him guilty of the offense as charged and is not rendered ambiguous by the words "by his negligence" or by the fact that the jury made a recommendation that he be punished as for a misdemeanor, when they did not have the power to do so. The court did not err in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment.
Error from Superior Court, Gwinnett County; W. W. Stark, Judge.
Baxter Cain was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, and he brings error. Affirmed.
W. L. Nix and P. Cooley, both of Lawrenceville, for plaintiff in error.
Clifford Pratt, Sol. Gen., of Winder, for the State.
The defendant was indicted for the offense of involuntary manslaughter. The indictment contained four separate counts, each alleging the commission of different unlawful acts. The jury returned the following verdict: A motion in arrest of judgment was made by the defendant out of which two questions seem to arise, to wit: (1) Is the verdict void for uncertainty? And (2) if not void for uncertainty, does it follow the pleadings in that it is a verdict of guilt of involuntary manslaughter in the commission of an unlawful act?
It is to be kept in mind that "verdicts are to have a reasonable intendment, and are to receive a reasonable construction, and are not to be avoided unless from necessity." Code of 1933 § 27-2301; Telfair County v. Clements, 1 Ga.App. 437, 57 S.E. 1059; Smith v. State, 117 Ga. 16, 17, 43 S.E. 440; Wood v. Milly McGuire's Children, 17 Ga. 361, 63 Am.Dec. 246. "This is the general spirit of the Code, as well as the expression of the more universal tendency of jurisprudence towards freedom from that slavish adherence to technical nicety which is the reproach of the common law." Arnold v. State, 51 Ga. 144. "In every verdict there must be a reference to the indictment and the issue to make it have any meaning." Arnold v. State, supra. "A verdict is to be given reasonable intendment, and, when ambiguous, may be construed in the light of the issues actually submitted to the jury under the charge of the court; and if, when so construed, it ex presses with reasonable certainty a finding supported by the evidence, it is to be upheld as legal." Barbour v. State, 8 Ga.App. 27, 68 S.E. 458.
In ...
To continue reading
Request your trial