Hardrick v. State, 36903
| Decision Date | 13 November 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 36903,36903,2 |
| Citation | 96 Ga.App. 670,101 S.E.2d 99 |
| Parties | Tommie HARDRICK v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
James L. Boatright, Valdosta, for plaintiff in error.
Dewey Hayes, Sol. Gen., Douglas, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. The indictment charged the defendant with involuntary manslaughter in that he, on a named date This is an allegation that the defendant drove his automobile against and into a vehicle which he was meeting, driven by Robert Almond Duke, and in which the deceased, C. E. Miller, was riding. The indictment is accordingly not subject to special demurrer on the ground that it does not show in what automobile C. E. Miller was riding. Nor is it subject to objection in charging the defendant with driving in wilful and wanton disregard of the safety of persons and property. Code, § 26-1009 specifically removes from the crime of involuntary manslaughter the element of intent to kill, but not the intent to do the act from which the death resulted. What constitutes criminal negligence under the involuntary manslaughter statute is discussed in Geele v. State, 203 Ga. 369, 375, 47 S.E.2d 283, where it is defined as reckless conduct, such as shows an indifference to the injurious results of the negligent acts, an indifference to the safety of others, and lack of consideration for their welfare. Wanton conduct is generally characterized as being 'such as to evidence a willful intention to inflict the injury, or else * * * so reckless or so charged with indifference to the consequences * * * as to justify the jury in finding a wantonness equivalent in spirit to actual intent.' See Arrington v. Trammell, 83 Ga.App. 107, 111, 62 S.E.2d 451, 454. Such is that criminal negligence which is the subject matter of this code section. The indictment was not subject to the demurrers interposed.
2. It is error to charge, where the question of whether the defendant was driving a motor vehicle in an intoxicated condition is before the jury, that 'it is not necessary for the state to show that the accused was drunk; but it is sufficient if the state shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused was under the influence of some intoxicant as charged, to any extent whatsoever, whether drunk or not.' Harper v. State, 91 Ga.App. 456(2), 86 S.E.2d 7, 11. The rule is that he is under the influence 'when it appears that it is less safe for such person to operate a motor vehicle than it would be if he were not so affected.' Accordingly,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. State
...of those crimes required proof of his intent to kill. Holliman v. State, 257 Ga. 209, 356 S.E.2d 886 (1987); Hardrick v. State, 96 Ga.App. 670(1), 101 S.E.2d 99 (1957). The felony murder verdict was based upon commission of aggravated assault, whereas the predicate for the involuntary mansl......
-
Roebuck v. State
...of the expert shows that he matched a print lifted from Mr. Boyd's automobile to Appellant's print. See Hardrick v. State, 96 Ga.App. 670, 672(4), 101 S.E.2d 99 (1957). Appellant contends that the print card is hearsay, because it was never formally tendered and admitted as a business recor......
-
Bissell v. State
...verdict if they should find the defendant guilty of a lesser included offense of that charged in the indictment (Hardrick v. State, 96 Ga.App. 670, 672(3), 101 S.E.2d 99 (1957)), construing the entire charge in the instant case, especially that portion above quoted, we deem it sufficient to......
-
Cook v. Com.
...v. United States, 58 App.D.C. 62, 24 F.2d 890 (1928); Jenkins v. United States, 146 A.2d 444 (D.C.Mun.App.1958); Hardrick v. State, 96 Ga.App. 670, 101 S.E.2d 99 (1957); Green v. Commonwealth, 413 S.W.2d 329 (Ky.1967); State v. Wyckoff, 27 N.J.Super. 322, 99 A.2d 365 (1953); Tipton v. State......