Chastain v. State
| Decision Date | 01 October 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 64298,64298 |
| Citation | 296 S.E.2d 69,163 Ga.App. 678 |
| Parties | CHASTAIN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
William T. Hankins, III, Decatur, for appellant.
Robert Wilson, Dist. Atty., Susan Brooks, Asst. Dist. Atty., Decatur, for appellee.
Appellant was indicted for aggravated assault, three counts of aggravated assault on a peace officer, and driving under the influence of alcohol. In a trial before a judge sitting without a jury, appellant's sole defense was insanity. The trial judge, on facts stipulated by the parties, found appellant guilty on all counts.
1. In his first enumeration of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred by failing to direct a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. Pretermitting the fact that there is no verdict to be directed in a trial before a judge without a jury (see Lowry v. Lomire, 143 Ga.App. 479(1), 238 S.E.2d 594), and assuming that appellant is arguing that the evidence in this case demanded a verdict of acquittal as a matter of law, we find no error in the trial court's refusal to acquit appellant.
The facts to which appellant stipulated at trial were that he accosted a woman and cut her on the arm; he then fled and was pursued by police officers. When the chase ended, appellant "pulled a knife on" three police officers, but was subdued without injuring anyone else. A blood alcohol test indicated that appellant was intoxicated. Appellant also produced documentary evidence supporting his insanity defense: a recent psychiatric evaluation and voluminous records relating to his long-standing mental health problems.
Moses v. State, 245 Ga. 180, 263 S.E.2d 916.
2. Appellant's second enumeration of error is that his conviction cannot stand in light of what counsel characterizes as a finding "uncontradicted in the record" that appellant did not know the difference between right and wrong at the time of the offenses. Contrary to counsel's assertion, the trial court ruled at the hearing on appellant's motion for new trial, a hearing attended by appellant's present counsel, that the so-called finding was obviously either a mistake by the court reporter or a slip of the tongue by the trial judge. Appellant's motion for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Awtrey v. State
...v. State, 253 Ga. 90, 91(1), 317 S.E.2d 193 (1984); Jackson v. State, 149 Ga.App. 253, 255, 253 S.E.2d 874 (1979); Chastain v. State, 163 Ga.App. 678(1), 296 S.E.2d 69 (1982). The verdict of guilty but mentally ill was authorized. OCGA § 17-7-131(c). See generally Kirkland v. State, 166 Ga.......
-
Williams v. State, A06A0240.
...S.E.2d 5 (2001) (reasonable apprehension of injury sufficient to support conviction for aggravated assault); Chastain v. State, 163 Ga.App. 678, 679-680(3), 296 S.E.2d 69 (1982) (pulling a knife on an officer sufficient to support conviction for aggravated assault on a police officer). 7. (......
-
Daughtry v. State
...of immediately receiving a violent injury. This is sufficient to support the charge of aggravated assault. Chastain v. State, 163 Ga.App. 678, 680(3), 296 S.E.2d 69 (1982). There is no requirement that a victim be actually injured and the crime is complete without proof of injury. Clark v. ......
-
Municipal & Indus. Pipe Service, Ltd. v. Walter E. Heller & Co. of Georgia, 64235
... ... check with the notation "payment in full," the requirement that there be a bona fide dispute concerning the amount owed was not the law of this state. The law of accord and satisfaction as it existed at the time appellee accepted appellant's check was that if there was a tender made, "though it be ... ...