Jackson v. State
Decision Date | 10 September 1992 |
Docket Number | No. A92A1172,A92A1172 |
Parties | JACKSON v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Megan C. Devorsey, Savannah, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Benjamin H. Oehlert III, Atlanta, A. Thomas Jones, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
Timothy Jackson was convicted in Fulton County for sale of cocaine and for simple battery. On appeal he contends the trial court erred by commenting on the evidence and gave an overbroad definition of simple battery in the charge. Held:
1. The trial court gave this charge: Appellant contends this charge expresses an opinion that appellant sold cocaine. But the instruction merely advises the jury that appellant is not authorized to sell or disperse controlled substances. This accurate statement of an uncontested and undisputed fact does not reflect an opinion that appellant sold cocaine. See Dixon v. State, 196 Ga.App. 15, 18(7), 395 S.E.2d 577 2. Appellant was charged in the indictment with the offense of simple battery by unlawfully and intentionally causing physical harm. The jury was charged that a person commits simple battery when he "either, A, intentionally makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature upon the person of another, or, B, intentionally causes physical harm to another." See OCGA § 16-5-23. In Lyman v. State, 188 Ga.App. 790, 792, 374 S.E.2d 563, we held: But, we declined to reverse the conviction in Zager v. State, 172 Ga.App. 207, 322 S.E.2d 530 saying: " " The basis of this holding was that, as in Weaver v. State, 169 Ga.App. 890(6), 315 S.E.2d 467, the trial judge read to the jury the charge in the indictment, sent the indictment out with the jury and told them to refer to it as often as necessary. In Anderson v. State, 262 Ga. 26, 413 S.E.2d 732, the Supreme Court noted an apparent duality in such rulings and pointedly did not hold that it was reversible error, as a matter of law, to charge the entire Code section; the court observed that the record showed the jury was confused by the charge, but no remedial instruction was given nor did the accusation clarify the charge. The jury in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Shansab v. Homart Development Co., Inc., A92A0944
-
Slaughter v. State
...having been made below, there was no error. Campbell v. State, 207 Ga.App. 902, 905(4), 429 S.E.2d 538 (1993); Jackson v. State, 205 Ga.App. 452, 453(2), 422 S.E.2d 304 (1992). Even had one been requested, failure to give it was not error. See Ladson v. State, 248 Ga. 470, 476(9), 285 S.E.2......
-
State v. Meadows
...has implicitly upheld the use of this word in the context of simple battery charges in several cases. See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 205 Ga. App. 452(2), 422 S.E.2d 304 (1992); Jinks v. State, 155 Ga.App. 925(1), 274 S.E.2d 46 In the instant case, there was no impropriety in the use of the wo......
-
Slaughter v. State
...is distinguishable; this issue is controlled adversely to appellant's contention by the holding of this court in Jackson v. State, 205 Ga.App. 452(1), 422 S.E.2d 304. 3. Appellant asserts the trial court erred in charging: "Now you are only concerned with the guilt or innocence of this defe......