Diamond v. State
| Decision Date | 19 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 47221,No. 1,47221,1 |
| Citation | 191 S.E.2d 492,126 Ga.App. 580 |
| Parties | Richard DIAMOND v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Grogan, Jones & Layfield, John C. Swearingen, Jr., Columbus, for appellant.
Thomas W. Hughey, Sol., Barschall Andrews, Columbus, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The defendant was tried on an accusation charging him with simple assault. He was convicted and sentenced to serve seven months in the public works camp and five months on probation. In substance, the testimony of the State was that during a riot or near-riot during a 'peace-march' in the City of Columbus, the defendant, a photographer for a local Columbus newspaper, struck a policeman with a camera, and thereafter several policemen were required in order to subdue him. The testimony offered by the defense was that the defendant did not resist arrest, did nothing, but was beaten severely about the head and body by several policemen.
A motion for new trial was duly filed, amended and thereafter heard and overruled. The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence. Held:
1. The evidence did not require the court to charge on 'accident,' 'justification,' 'misfortune,' or 'good character,' as none of the above was made an issue in the case. The defendant testified that he did nothing to cause the police to attack him, merely being present to take pictures, but this is not sufficient to put his character in issue. Justification was not a defense, because he testified positively that he never struck the policeman. Nor did the defendant's contention involve accident or misfortune. None of these questions is involved in this case and none of the errors enumerated thereon is meritorious.
2. The defendant contends 'intent' is an essential ingredient of every crime, and the jury was not properly instructed so they could have the necessary understanding of the definition of a crime in order to arrive at a correct decision of guilt or innocence. The defendant denied he ever hit the officer. Where the court charges on the essential elements of a crime with which the defendant is charged, it is not error to fail to charge that the law requires a combination of a criminal act and intent, especially where the charge does include instructions to the jury on the requirements of the offense in question. Fleming v. State, 74 Ga.App. 864(3), 41 S.E.2d 824; Tucker v. State, 94 Ga.App. 468(4), 471, 95 S.E.2d 296; Nestor v. State, 122 Ga.App. 290(3), 176 S.E.2d 637. There was no written request to charge; thus the charge as given was not erroneous.
3. The defendant contends the burden was on the State to introduce in evidence the camera with which he allegedly struck the police officer. The State, expecially in the absence of any demand to produce, should be permitted to determine what evidence, oral, physical or otherwise, it will introduce in the case. It cannot be said that reversible error was committed by the State in not introducing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...is also a generic term covering all forms of assault, including "aggravated assault." Defendant cites to us Diamond v. State, 126 Ga.App. 580, 582, 191 S.E.2d 492, 494, which held that where the ". . . State's evidence proved a clear case of battery . . . under Code § 27-2508, the defendant......
-
Sumbry v. Land
...to the unhappy occurrences which ended in the instant appeal plus other litigation here and in the Federal Courts. See Diamond v. State, 126 Ga.App. 580, 191 S.E.2d 492 and Community Action Group v. City of Columbus (Civil Action No. 1528, M.D.Ga.), presently under appeal to the U.S. Court ......
-
Community Action Group v. City of Columbus, 72-1650.
...to subdue him" established a clear case of battery, so that a conviction of simple assault was contrary to law. Diamond v. State, 1972, 126 Ga.App. 580, 191 S.E.2d 492. 2 Anderson, Crawford, Warren, and others were indicted in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Geor......
-
C. L. T. v. State, 60813
...to dismiss the petition upon appellant's motion made at the conclusion of the state's case. Appellant's reliance on Diamond v. State, 126 Ga.App. 580, 191 S.E.2d 492 (1972) is misplaced as the applicable holding therein was expressly overruled in Scott v. State, 3. Having reviewed the evide......