Edmondson v. State

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: POWELL, J.
• Citation: Edmondson v. State, 57 S.E. 947, 1 Ga.App. 116 (Ga. App. 1907)
• Decision Date: 31 January 1907
• Docket Number: 164.
• Parties: EDMONDSON v. STATE.

57 S.E. 947

1 Ga.App. 116

EDMONDSON v. STATE.

No. 164.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

January 31, 1907

Syllabus by the Court.

Where the trial judge undertakes to state to the jury the contentions of the defendant, he should do so accurately, and not in a manner likely to disparage the defense as actually set up.

One charged with the offense of stabbing may successfully defend by showing either that the stabbing was done in self-defense or that it was done under other circumstances of justification. A charge by the court to the jury which in effect limits the defendant's right of justification to the defense of his life or limb is therefore erroneous.

Error from City Court of La Grange; Harwell, Judge.

One Edmondson was convicted of stabbing, and brings error. Reversed.

Hatton Lovejoy, for plaintiff in error.

Henry Reeves, Sol., for the State.

POWELL J.

Edmondson was convicted of the offense of stabbing. The contentions of the defendant, upon the trial, may be succinctly gathered from the following extract taken from the report of his statement: "Byrd [the prosecutor] then said he was damn tired of the lies I had been telling, and struck me over the head with a stick which he had, cutting my head and causing the blood to flow down upon me. I was knocked to my knees by the blow. We clinched, and Byrd threw me on the ground, and was beating me with a stick, when I cut him. I cut him in an attempt to make him stop beating me with the stick. I quit cutting him as soon as he was pulled off from me. I did not cut him again when he was pulled off from me and stopped beating me with his stick." The prosecutor, in his testimony, conceded that he had hit the defendant with the stick, had knocked him down, and was upon him, beating him at the time of the stabbing. The only testimony as to the size of the stick came from one of the defendant's witnesses--that it was large enough to kill a man. The trial judge, in stating the contentions of the defendant to the jury, used the following language: "The defendant, on the other hand, claims that, while he cut the prosecutor, Joe Byrd, it was done in self-defense, or under circumstances of justification. He claims that the prosecutor, Joe Byrd, made an attack on him with a large stick; that his life was in danger; that they fell, the prosecutor on top; that the prosecutor, Joe Byrd, continued to strike him after they were down; that it was under these circumstances that he cut the prosecutor, after the assault was made on him by the prosecutor, Joe Byrd, with this stick; that he cut the prosecutor, Byrd, therefore, in self-defense, and only so long as the prosecutor was on him and striking him," etc. Defendant excepted to this charge on the ground that it incorrectly stated the defense which was set up, and that it placed a greater burden upon the defendant than is required in cases of stabbing, because the defendant was entitled to repel the assault, if an assault was made, without regard to whether his life was in danger. Exception is also taken to the following charge by the court: "Well, I charge you that if defendant's contention, as stated to you, be the truth of the matter, that the prosecutor was the assailant assaulted defendant with a large stick in a manner to endanger defendant's life or limb, and that defendant then cut prosecutor, Joe Byrd, in self-defense, and cut him only so far as was necessary to his self-defense, then I charge defendant would have a right to repel the assault, to cut the prosecutor under the...