Dasher v. State
| Decision Date | 31 May 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 55788,55788 |
| Parties | DASHER v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Gibbs, Leaphart & Smith, T. Alvin Leaphart, Jesup, for appellant.
Glenn Thomas, Jr., Dist. Atty., John P. Rivers, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Marcus Dasher shot and killed Charlie Sheffield, his ex-wife's husband. He was indicted for murder, convicted of voluntary manslaughter, appeals, and we affirm.
1. Dasher asserts in his first enumeration that the trial court erred in refusing to allow Sheffield's wife to testify that Sheffield had a bad temper and was prone to violence when he was drinking.
Henderson v. State, 234 Ga. 827, 828(1), 218 S.E.2d 612, 614 (1975). The evidence here showed that Dasher slapped Sheffield while he was sitting in his car, and that when Sheffield got out of his car he had no weapons in his hand nor did he strike Dasher. When the state objected that the proper foundation under the "deceased aggressor" rule had not been laid, the trial court instructed Dasher's attorney as to the proper procedure. Rather than proceeding, however, counsel abandoned his inquiry into Sheffield's alleged character. This enumeration is without merit.
2. Enumerations 2, 3 and 4 contend that the trial court erred in failing to give certain charges requested by Dasher concerning justifiable homicide and the use of force in self-defense. The jury were charged the principles set forth in Criminal Code § 26-902 of use of force in defense of self and others, including justifiable homicide, and as to the rules they were to apply in determining whether or not Dasher was justified in his alleged reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary. They were also instructed that it was proper to consider the relative size, strength, health and physical infirmities of Dasher and Sheffield. These instructions encompassed the same legal principles contained in Dasher's requests to charge and it was not error for the court to fail to adopt the exact language requested. Hostetler v. State, 145 Ga.App. 55(2), 243 S.E.2d 256 (1978) and cits.
Judgment affirmed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ailstock v. State, 61822
...Ann. § 26-1306, appellant failed in this case to lay the proper foundation for the invocation of such a rule. See Dasher v. State, 146 Ga.App. 118(1), 245 S.E.2d 476 (1978). There was no error in excluding testimony by a defense witness that the victim had a general reputation for using opp......
-
Cook v. State
...Bennett v. State, 254 Ga. 162, 164(3) (326 SE2d 438) (1985); Milton v. State, 245 Ga. 20, 22[, 262 SE2d 789 supra]; Dasher v. State, 146 Ga.App. 118(1) (245 SE2d 476) (1978). Whether these criteria have been met is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Curtis v. State, 24......
-
Hagans v. State
...v. State, 254 Ga. 162, 164 (3), 326 S.E.2d 438 (1985); Milton v. State, 245 Ga. 20, 22, 262 S.E.2d 789 (1980); Dasher v. State, 146 Ga.App. 118 (1), 245 S.E.2d 476 (1978). Whether these criteria have been met is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Curtis v. State, 241 G......
-
Riner v. State
...v. State, 230 Ga. 126(1), 195 S.E.2d 900 (1973); Parks v. State, 234 Ga. 579, 582(2), 216 S.E.2d 804 (1975). Cf. Dasher v. State, 146 Ga.App. 118, 245 S.E.2d 476 (1978). 2. The challenge to the array of the grand jury, and the corresponding attack upon the indictment, complaining of systema......