Holland v. State
| Citation | 60 S.E. 205,3 Ga.App. 465 |
| Decision Date | 27 January 1908 |
| Docket Number | 914. |
| Parties | HOLLAND v. STATE. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Syllabus by the Court.
This case is controlled by the repeated rulings of the Supreme Court that the law embraced in Pen. Code 1895, § 73, does not qualify or limit the law of justifiable homicide as contained in sections 70 and 71, and that instructions as to these two separate branches of the law of justifiable homicide should not be so given as to confuse the one with the other, to tend to perplex the jury in making appropriate application of the law to the facts.
In no view of the evidence or the statement of the accused was the law of justifiable homicide in cases of mutual combat, as laid down in Pen. Code 1895,§ 73, applicable to this case and the court erred in giving in charge that section.
[Ed Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 26, Homicide §§ 614-632.]
Words threats, and menaces, while they are in no case sufficient to arouse such a passion as will mitigate a homicide from murder to voluntary manslaughter, may under some circumstances be sufficient to arouse a reasonable fear in the mind of the slayer, and thereby afford a complete justification for the killing.
[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 26, Homicide, § 163.]
In charging section 70 of the Penal Code of 1895, the judge should explain to the jury the meaning of the technical word "felony," used therein.
The court, in his instructions to the jury, should be careful to guard against using abstract legal quotations and sententious judicial utterances in such manner as to make them misleading under the particular circumstances of the case.
[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 14, Criminal Law, §§ 1961, 1979.]
Error from Superior Court, Whitfield County; A. W. Fite, Judge.
Harrison Holland was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and brings error. Reversed.
W. E. Mann, G. G. Glenn, and F. W. Copeland, for plaintiff in error.
Sam. P. Maddox, Sol. Gen., and W. C. Martin, for the State.
1, 2. The defendant was indicted for murder and convicted of voluntary manslaughter. For the same errors as are dealt with in the case of Lightsy v. State, 2 Ga.App. 422 (1, 2), 58 S.E. 686, a new trial must be granted in this case. Section 73 of the Penal Code of 1895 was in no wise applicable under the evidence, and, if applicable, should not have been charged in such juxtaposition with sections 70 and 71 as to leave the impression upon the minds of the jury that its principles were a limitation upon those of the other two sections. This question has been discussed too often and too lucidly by the Supreme Court, as well as by this court, to deserve further elaboration here. The court did, however, in this case interpolate into section 73, as he charged it, the words "or to prevent a felony being committed upon him." This in some degree mitigated the error, but did not entirely cure it; for, even with this interpolation, the instruction as given is: "If a person kill another in his defense, it must appear that the danger was so urgent and pressing, at the time of the killing, that in order to save his own life, or to prevent a felony being committed on him, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary," etc. This entirely ignores the defendant's right to kill under an apparent necessity justified by reasonable fears.
3. According to the evidence, the deceased used toward the defendant opprobrious words, threats, and menaces, some of which, at least, in connection with other acts of the deceased, might have been considered by the jury as sufficient to arouse reasonable fears in the defendant. The court charged the jury: "Provocation by words, threats menaces, or contemptuous gestures shall in no case be sufficient to free the person killing from the guilt and crime of murder." This is a sound proposition, as applied to certain phases of the evidence; but, thus left unlimited and unexplained, it must have tended to confuse the jury and to do the defendant an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rader
...in the absence of a request, failure to inform the jury of the meaning of the word will not necessarily work a reversal. Holland v. State, 3 Ga.App. 465, 60 S.E. 205; Roberts v. State, 114 Ga. 450, 40 S.E. Pickens v. State, 132 Ga. 46, 63 S.E. 783; Mills v. State, 133 Ga. 155, 65 S.E. 368; ......
-
Smith v. State
...71 of the Penal Code." Stubbs v. State, 110 Ga. 916, 36 S. E. 200. See, also, Mell v. State, 112 Ga. 78, 37 S. E. 121; Holland v. State, 3 Ga. App. 465, 60 S. E. 205; McCray v. State, 134 Ga. 416, 417, 68 S. E. 62, 20 Ann. Cas. 101; Morgan v. State, 152 Ga. 537, 110 S. E. 286; Jones v. Stat......
- Holland v. State
-
Bird v. State, 30594.
...Ga. 792, 803, 10 S.E.2d 836, 842. See also Williams v. State, 57 Ga. 478; Price v. State, 137 Ga. 71, 75, 72 S.E. 908; Holland v. State, 3 Ga. App. 465(3), 60 S.E. 205; Brantley v. State, 5 Ga.App. 458, 63 S.E. 519; Deal v. State, supra; Vernon v. State, 146 Ga. 709, 715, 92 S.E. 76. For a ......