Leverette v. State
| Decision Date | 02 November 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 39133,39133,2 |
| Citation | 104 Ga.App. 743,122 S.E.2d 745 |
| Parties | Hazel E. LEVERETTE v. STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Walton Hardin, Washington, J. T. Sisk, Elberton, for plaintiff in error.
Clete D. Johnson, Sol. Gen., Royston, Williford & Grant, John W. Williford, William F. Grant, Elberton, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. While it is the right of the defendant to have counsel with him at every stage during the trial of a case (See Duke v. State, 104 Ga.App. 494, 122 S.E.2d 127) no harm resulted to the defendant, where in the absence of his counsel, the court turned the jury over to the sheriff to be taken to supper, at which time one of the jurors asked, 'What about the minimum sentence served and parole?' and the judge replied, 'The court can't answer that question; the law won't permit the court to discuss that with the jury.' This did not amount to an instruction to the jury, but merely to mandatory refusal to instruct the jury on a prohibited issue. The presence of counsel could in no way have aided the defendant where the court himself took the proper steps to safeguard her rights. Cf. Morton v. State, 190 Ga. 792, 10 S.E.2d 836.
2. The defendant was indicted for murder and convicted of manslaughter in connection with her admitted shooting of one Donnie Scales, her defense being that the shot was fired in self defense against one endeavoring forcibly to enter her home to commit personal violence upon her. Undisputed testimony showed that the altercation began during the afternoon when the defendant went to Calhoun, S., C., where her husband and the deceased were found together and there that afternoon she took out warrants against both men for assault; that late that night the deceased and his wife came to her home and that she procured a pistol from her bedroom and fired one shot which proved to be fatal. Special grounds 4, 5 and 6 of the amended motion for a new trial complain of the admission of testimony of various witnesses purporting to show that the defendant had quarreled with, shot at, and been beaten by her husband on the evening before and the morning of the day of the shooting, over the objection that it put the defendant's character in issue. That the intent of the solicitor in offering the testimony was to do exactly this was shown by his statement to the court that he was offering the evidence 'to show the conduct or the mind of the defendant, and the pattern of the conduct on the part of the defendant' and that 'this defendant was down there shooting at everybody coming along including her husband and would go to show a crime of a similar nature.' We agree with the solicitor that this is exactly what the testimony in question tends to show. Whether such conclusion is justified or not would depend on all the facts surrounding that transaction. She might have been entirely justified in her acts and would have been in position to show such justification if afforded the opportunity. Obviously she did not come to court that day prepared to defend herself for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thacker v. State
...'that he could tell them nothing about parole', such did not constitute an instruction or charge to the jury. See Leverette v. State, 104 Ga.App. 743, 122 S.E.2d 745, where it was said: 'While it is the right of the defendant to have counsel with him at every stage during the trial of a cas......
-
Berryhill v. State
...or charge to the jury and no reversible error is shown. Thacker v. State, 226 Ga. 170, 173 S.E.2d 186 (1970); Leverette v. State, 104 Ga.App. 743, 122 S.E.2d 745 (1961). Rogers v. United States, 422 U.S. 35, 95 S.Ct. 2091, 45 L.Ed.2d 1, urged by Justice Hill in his dissent, is in the view o......
-
State v. Ivicsics
...even though the circumstances do not justify the belief there was actual danger of death or serious bodily harm. Leverette v. State, 122 S.E.2d 745, 746-747 (Ga.App.1961); People v. Eatman, 405 Ill. 491, 91 N.E.2d 387, 389-390 (Ill.1950). Under this reasoning, defense of habitation differs ......
-
Benham v. State
...appears to be "the degree of violence necessary to be shown on the part of the assailant." (Emphasis supplied.) Leverette v. State, 104 Ga.App. 743, 745(3), 122 S.E.2d 745 (1961). See also Zachery v. State, 199 Ga.App. 891, 893, 406 S.E.2d 243 (1991). Thus, the defense of habitation justifi......