Graham v. State

• Decision Date: 11 November 1925
• Docket Number: (No. 16733.)
• Citation: 34 Ga.App. 598,130 S.E. 354
• Parties: GRAHAM. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

34 Ga.App. 598

130 S.E. 354

GRAHAM.

v.STATE.

(No. 16733.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

Nov. 11, 1925.

(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Luke, J., dissenting.

Error from Superior Court, Pierce County; Harry D. Reed, Judge.

Sam Graham was convicted of an offense, and he brings error. Affirmed.

Jas. R. Thomas & Son, of Jesup, for plaintiff in error.

A. B. Spence, Sol. Gen., of Waycross, for the State.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

PER CURIAM. [1] 1. There is no error in the following charge:

"A witness may be impeached by disproving the facts testified to by him, or by proof ofcontradictory statements previously made by him of matters relevant to his testimony and to the case, or by proof of general bad character. When thus impeached, or sought to be, in either of the latter instances, he may be sustained by proof of general good character, the effect of the evidence to be determined by the jury." (Italics ours.)

The phrase, "in either of the latter instances, " excludes the first method of impeachment, by disproving the facts testified to by the witness, and this differentiates the case from the cases of Bell v. State, 100 Ga. 78, 27 S. E. 669, and Harper v. State, 17 Ga. App. 561, 87 S. E. 808, cited and relied upon by plaintiff in error. See, however, McBride v. State, 150 Ga. 92 (1), 102 S. E. 865.

2. There are some theories deducible from the evidence and the statement of the defendant that would tend to show voluntary manslaughter. Under this testimony and the broad rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court:

"If there be any evidence to create a doubt, however slight, as to whether the offense is murder or voluntary manslaughter, instructions as to the law of both of these offenses should be given. Jackson v. State, 76 Ga. 473, 478; Wayne [Wynne] v. State, 56 Ga. 113." And "if there is anything deducible from the evidence, or from the defendant's statement at the trial, that would tend to show manslaughter, voluntary or involuntary, it is the duty of the court to instruct the jury fully on the law of manslaughter." Griffin v. State, 18 Ga. App. 462, 89 S. E. 537.

See Weldon v. State, 21 Ga. App. 330 (h), 94 S. E. 326.

Judgment affirmed.

BROYLES, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, J., concur.

LUKE, J., (dissenting). I cannot agree to the second headnote. In my opinion, the evidence of the state was, in substance, that the deceased was coming towards the accused without any attempt or threat to commit a serious personal injury upon him. The statement of the defendant and the evidence introduced by him was, in substance, that the deceased had threatened to kill...