Dyal v. State
| Decision Date | 21 October 1895 |
| Parties | DYAL v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where K. D. and W. M., upon an agreement to fight "a fair fight" without weapons, were preparing to engage in such a fight, and A. M., a brother of W. M., came up to them with a gun, which K. D. seized, and, while K. D. and A. M were struggling over the gun, J. D., a brother of K. D., with another gun, shot and killed W. M., K. D. was criminally responsible for J. D.'s act if it was the result of a previous conspiracy between these two to kill W. M.; but if there was no such conspiracy, and K. D. did not participate in the design to kill, he was not legally responsible for the homicide. In any event, K. D., under such circumstances, was guilty of murder, or nothing.
2. There being no view of the evidence under which a verdict for voluntary manslaughter could be legally rendered against the accused on trial, it was error to give in charge to the jury the law relating to this grade of homicide.
Error from superior court, Appling county; J. L. Sweat, Judge.
Kossuth Dyal was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and brings error. Reversed.
G. J Holton & Son and T. A. Parker, for plaintiff in error.
W. G Brantley, Sol. Gen., for the State.
An indictment was returned against John Dyal and Kossuth Dyal, who were brothers, for the murder of William McEachin. Kossuth Dyal was tried, and found guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Andrew McEachin, a brother of the deceased, was present, and to some extent participated in the difficulty which resulted in the homicide. For the sake of brevity, these parties will hereinafter be designated, respectively, as "John," "Kossuth," "William," and "Andrew." It appears from the evidence that Kossuth and William had made an agreement to fight "a fair fight" without weapons. While they were preparing to engage in a fight of this kind, Andrew came up to them with a gun, which Kossuth immediately seized, and a struggle then ensued between these two for the possession of the gun. While this struggle was in progress, John, with another gun, shot and killed William.
It was contended by the state that, previous to the occurrences just narrated, John and Kossuth had entered into a conspiracy to kill William, and that the design of that conspiracy was accomplished by his being killed at the time and in the manner above stated. This theory of the state was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NeeSmith v. State, 35830
...of the contention, as follows: Branch v. State, 5 Ga.App. 651(1), 63 S.E. 714; Rivers v. State, 24 Ga.App. 365, 100 S.E. 796; Dyal v. State, 97 Ga. 428, 25 S.E. 319; McBeth v. State, 122 Ga. 737, 50 S.E. 931, and James v. State, 123 Ga. 548(1), 51 S.E. 577. This principle of law is correct,......
-
Jenkins v. State, 11026
...of conspiracy, and the person on trial did not inflict the mortal wound, a verdict of guilty cannot stand." See, also, Dyal v. State, 97 Ga. 428, 25 S.E. 319; McLeroy v. State, 125 Ga. 240, 54 S.E. 125; Baynes v. State, 135 Ga. 219, 69 S.E. 170; Williams v. State, 85 Ga. 535, 11 S.E. 859, I......
-
Jenkins v. State
... ... State, ... 148 Ga. 149, 95 S.E. 980, that: "Where one jointly ... indicted with others for murder is on trial, if there is no ... evidence of conspiracy, and the person on trial did not ... inflict the mortal wound, a verdict of guilty cannot ... stand." See, also, Dyal v. State, 97 Ga. 428, ... 25 S.E. 319; McLeroy v. State, 125 Ga. 240, 54 S.E ... 125; Baynes v. State, 135 Ga. 219, 69 S.E. 170; ... Williams v. State, 85 Ga. 535, 11 ... ...
-
Graham v. State
...on voluntary manslaughter. See James v. State, 123 Ga. 548, 51 S. E. 577; Worley v. State, 138 Ga. 336, 339, 75 S. E. 240; Dyal v. State, 97 Ga. 428, 25 S. E. 319; Hudson v. State, 24 Ga. App. 310, 100 S. E. ...