Hill v. State, 60210
| Decision Date | 17 September 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 60210,60210 |
| Citation | 155 Ga.App. 718,272 S.E.2d 508 |
| Parties | HILL v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Hugh Q. Wallace, Macon, for appellant.
W. Don Thompson, Dist. Atty., for appellee.
1. Annie Hill admitted shooting and killing Phyllis Rowland. She was indicted and tried for murder and convicted of voluntary manslaughter. The evidence shows that after an exchange of words between the women in the home of the victim's boyfriend Hill and other visitors left. Their host attempted to restrain Phyllis Rowland but she broke loose, ran from the house, and appeared to be heading toward the appellant who as the appellant approached between 8 and 40 feet of her, drew a pistol and felled her with a single shot. Complaint is made of jury instructions that after the court had charged that the defendant claimed to have acted in self defense and had given instructions on the law of that defense, he added: "However, a person is not justified in using force ... if he initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant, or is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission ... of a felony or was the aggressor" on the ground that the words "or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony" are unsupported by evidence. Assuming there was no evidence of flight (the defendant on leaving the scene announced that she was going home and the police knew where to find her) this portion of the charge was at most merely irrelevant, being one of a number of stated exceptions to the rule concerning the use of force in self-defense. The true question is whether an abstractly correct charge not authorized by the evidence is calculated to confuse and mislead the jury. The harmless error question in jury instructions as applied to criminal cases is discussed at length in Johnson v. State, 238 Ga. 59, 230 S.E.2d 869 (1976); where it is obviously highly probable that the error, if existing, did not contribute to the verdict, a reversal will not result. See also Morrison v. State, 147 Ga.App. 410, 249 S.E.2d 131 (1978); Bradham v. State, 148 Ga.App. 89, 250 S.E.2d 801 (1978). Taking the charge as a whole we find no reversible error.
2. Following an objection by defense counsel to the cross examination of the defendant regarding a defense witness, the state's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neal v. State, S11A1663.
...irrelevant, being one of a number of stated exceptions to the rule concerning the use of force in self-defense.” Hill v. State, 155 Ga.App. 718, 719(1), 272 S.E.2d 508 (1980). See also Lowe v. State, 267 Ga. 410, 413(4), 478 S.E.2d 762 (1996). Moreover, the trial court not only instructed t......
-
Stacey v. State, S13A0268.
...instruction did not contribute to the verdict.” Francis v. State, 266 Ga. 69, 72, 463 S.E.2d 859 (1995) (quoting Hill v. State, 155 Ga.App. 718, 719(1), 272 S.E.2d 508 (1980)). 3. Stacey contends the trial court erred in rejecting his Batson claim alleging discriminatory use of peremptory s......
-
Francis v. State
...not be reversed when it is highly probable that an erroneous jury instruction did not contribute to the verdict. Hill v. State, 155 Ga.App. 718, 719(1), 272 S.E.2d 508 (1980). A review of the charge as a whole shows that, immediately following the reference to impeachment pursuant to OCGA §......
-
Heard v. State
...was harmless at best under the "highly probable test." See Johnson v. State, 238 Ga. 59, 61, 230 S.E.2d 869. See also Hill v. State, 155 Ga.App. 718, 719(1), 272 S.E.2d 508. 14. Defendant also objects to the charge that a witness may be impeached "by evidence as to their general bad charact......