Driver v. State
| Decision Date | 18 September 1942 |
| Docket Number | 14161. |
| Citation | 22 S.E.2d 83,194 Ga. 561 |
| Parties | DRIVER v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Earl Staples and Emmett Smith, both of Carrollton for plaintiff in error.
Wm Y. Atkinson, Sol. Gen., of Newnan, J. L. Smith, of Carrollton, Ellis G. Arnall, Atty. Gen., and Emil J. Clower Asst. Attv. Gen., for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. The defendant was indicted for the alleged murder of his wife 'by causing her to drink a liquid containing arsenic poison,' and on the trial was convicted of the offense charged. His motion for new trial, in which he contended that the verdict was contrary to the evidence and without evidence to support it, and that the judge erred in failing, without request, to give to the jury specified instructions, was overruled, and he excepted. Held:
'In every case it is the duty of the judge, with or without request, to give to the jury an appropriate instruction as to the law on each substantive point or issue involved in the case; but a judge is not obliged to charge, in the absence of a timely written request, as to any collateral matter.' Patterson v. State, 134 Ga. 264, 267(3), 67 S.E. 816, 817.
The judge, having charged the jury that the defendant had entered a plea of not guilty, which made the issue that the jury were to try, that he contended that his wife did not die as the result of arsenic poison as alleged, and that if she died 'in the manner charged,' that is, if arsenic poison was given to her, he did not administer it, had nothing to do with it, and knew nothing about it, and having also instructed the jury fully and correctly as to the allegations in the indictment, presumption of innocence, and burden of proof, did not err in omitting, without request, to charge on the defendant's contention that his wife died as the result of heart trouble, as this was a mere collateral matter, elaborating the contention that the wife did not die as a result of poison, and was not such a distinct defense as to require instruction thereon in the absence of request. See Williams v. State, 120 Ga. 870, 48 S.E. 368; Savannah Electric Co. v. Jackson, 132 Ga. 559(4), 64 S.E. 680; Watson v. State, 136 Ga. 236(6), 71 S.E 122; Edge v. Calhoun National Bank, 155 Ga. 821(2), 118 S.E. 359; Evans v. State, 185 Ga. 375(2), 194 S.E. 873. The rulings just stated accord with the decisions in Strickland v. State, 98 Ga. 84(2), 25 S.E. 831, Sledge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pullen v. State, 55802
...court instructed on defendant's principal theory of defense. Cf. Wyatt v. State, 206 Ga. 613(3), 57 S.E.2d 914. Accord Driver v. State, 194 Ga. 561(1), 22 S.E.2d 83; Hilburn v. Hilburn, 210 Ga. 497(5), 81 S.E.2d 1. Although we can appreciate defense counsel's predicament of arguing to a jur......
-
Chase v. State
...must be given "an appropriate instruction as to the law on each substantive point or issue involved in the case...." Driver v. State, 194 Ga. 561(1), 22 S.E.2d 83 (1942). When a given instruction "fails to provide the jury with the proper guidelines for determining guilt or innocence[, it i......
-
Lyles v. State, 20465
...motion for a new trial are not meritorious. See Gossett v. State, supra, Clements v. State, 214 Ga. 569(1), 105 S.E.2d 725, Driver v. State, 194 Ga. 561, 22 S.E.2d 83, and McNaughton v. State, 136 Ga. 600, 71 S.E. 1038, where each defendant was convicted on circumstantial evidence and where......
-
Powers v. State
...or issue involved in (a) case" so as to enable the jury to judiciously decide the guilt or innocence of a defendant. Driver v. State, 194 Ga. 561(1), 22 S.E.2d 83. See also Glaze v. State, 2 Ga.App. 704, 58 S.E. 1126; Sledge v. State, 99 Ga. 684(2), 26 S.E. 756. As defendant's intention to ......