Freeman v. State

• Decision Date: 20 February 1907
• Docket Number: (No. 189.)
• Citation: 57 S.E. 924,1 Ga.App. 276
• Parties: FREEMAN v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

57 S.E. 924

1 Ga.App. 276

FREEMAN

v.STATE.

(No. 189.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Feb. 20, 1907.

1. Homicide — Voluntary Manslaughter — Instructions.

The evidence in the case was such as to authorize the charge upon the subject of voluntary manslaughter.

2. Same—Self-Defense—Instructions.

In charging the jury that a defendant is justifiable if he does the killing "in self-defense, or in the defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors by violence or surprise to commit a felony on either, " it is inaccurate and misleading to add to the correct definition of a felony ("an offense for which the offender, on conviction, shall be punished by death or imprisonment in the penitentiary, and not otherwise") the following: "If one man unlawfully kills another, that is a felony. That is what the law means by a felony. It is used in contradistinction or distinction of a misdemeanor, such an offense as an assault and battery. Got no right to kill a man for a mere assault, or assault and battery. Would have the right to kill a man to prevent him from killing you, if the other man is actually trying to kill you."

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 26, Homicide, §§ 614-632.]

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Coweta County; Freeman, Judge.

One Freeman was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and brings error. Reversed.

Hewlette A. Hall, for plaintiff in error.

J. Render Terrell, Sol. Gen., for the State.

POWELL, J. The defendant was indicted for murder, and convicted of voluntary manslaughter.

1. In his motion for new trial the defendant insists that the evidence demonstrates that there is no middle ground—that he is guilty of murder or of nothing. It will not be profitable to set forth the evidence, nor the process by which we arrive at the result, for no new point of law is involved; so we will merely decide the matter by holding that the charge on this subject is justified by the evidence.

2. He also assigns error upon the following charge: "Well, gentlemen, the law of this state is, there being no rational distinction, the law says, between excusable and justifiable homicide, it shall no longer exist. Justifiable homicide, the law says, is the killing of a human being by commandment of the law, in execution of public justice; by permission of the law, In advancement of public justice; in self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends, or...