Johnson v. State

• Decision Date: 16 March 1908
• Docket Number: (No. 967.)
• Citation: 4 Ga.App. 59,60 S.E. 813
• Parties: JOHNSON v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

60 S.E. 813

4 Ga.App. 59

JOHNSON

v.STATE.

(No. 967.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

March 16, 1908.

1. Homicide—Manslaughter—Sudden Quarrel.

Where two men suddenly fall out and quarrel, and draw knives and fight, and one kills the other by stabbing him, the offense is voluntary manslaughter. Gann v. State, 30 Ga. 67.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 26, Homicide, §§ 86, 87.]

2. Criminal Law—Instructions—Necessity of Written Request.

The theory of involuntary manslaughter in the commission of an unlawful act arises solely from the statement of the accused and is in conflict with the evidence. The court, therefore, was not bound to give in charge the law of in voluntary manslaughter, in the absence of a timely and pertinent written request. Hardin v. State, 107 Ga. 718, 33 S. B. 700; Richards v. State, 114 Ga. 834, 40 S. E. 1001; Baker v. State, 111 Ga. 141, 36 S. E. 607.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 14, Criminal Law, § 2007.1

3. Same—Writ of Error—Review—Harmless Error — Failure to Give Instructions.

While there can be neither murder nor voluntary manslaughter without an intent to kill, yet where the weapon used was a pocket knife, and the defendant stabbed the deceased in the neck with it, an intent to kill may be presumed, and it was harmless error not to charge specifically that the evidence must show an intent to kill, especially in the absence of a timely written request. Jones v. State. 29 Ga. 608; Lawrence v. State, 68 Ga. 289.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 26, Homicide, § 721.]

4. Homicide—Instructions.

Error is assigned on the following charge: "If the defendant killed the deceased, and if there was no necessity for the defendant to kill the deceased to save the life of the defendant, and if the circumstances were not sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable man that the deceased was intending by violence or surprise to take the life of the defendant, and if the killing was unjustifiable and unlawful, then defendant would be guilty of voluntary manslaughter." This charge contains no prejudicial error to the defendant, who was convicted of voluntary manslaughter.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 26, Homicide, §§ 649-656.]

5. Criminal Law—Instructions—Harmless Error.

The definition of reasonable doubt given by the court in the instructions to the jury was inapt, and probably did not enlighten them as to the meaning of the term. The evidence, however, clearly supporting the verdict for voluntary manslaughter, ' the error was immaterial and harmless.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 15, Criminal Law, §§ 3154-3169; vol. 14, Criminal Law, §§ 1904-1922.]

6. Homicide—Evidence.

No material or reversible error was committed, and the verdict is supported by the evidence.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Oglethorpe County; Jos. N. Worley, Judge.

Boston Johnson was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and he brings error. Affirme...