McDonald v. State
| Decision Date | 18 March 1913 |
| Docket Number | 4,611. |
| Citation | 77 S.E. 655,12 Ga.App. 526 |
| Parties | McDONALD v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
On the trial of one charged with murder, where the defense relied upon was justifiable homicide in self-defense, it was erroneous to instruct the jury to the effect that the burden was upon the accused to establish this defense to the satisfaction of the jury and beyond a reasonable doubt. This placed the burden on the accused, while the law placed it on the state.
The other assignments of error are without merit.
Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; L. S. Roan, Judge.
Frank McDonald was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and brings error. Reversed.
Frank Haralson, of Atlanta, Pat Haralson, of Blairsville, and Emmett Blount and Wm. M. Smith, both of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Hugh M Dorsey, Sol. Gen., and J. D. Kilpatrick, both of Atlanta, for the State.
Frank McDonald was tried under an indictment charging him with the offense of murder, and was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. The case is here on exceptions to the judgment overruling his motion for a new trial. As we feel compelled to grant a new trial for an error in the charge of the court we will not discuss the character or weight of the evidence. It may be stated, however, that the evidence of the guilt of the accused did not demand his conviction. We therefore the more readily set aside the verdict for the error of law which we will now consider.
The accused relied upon the defense of justifiable homicide in self-defense. The evidence in his behalf showed that the deceased was the aggressor; that he persistently cursed the accused and threatened to assault and kill him; and that the accused repeatedly declined the difficulty and disregarded the abusive language of the deceased, on account of the fact that it was apparent that the deceased was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Finally the deceased struck the accused with his hand. The accused pushed the deceased back from him, saying that the deceased was drunk and that he would see him later. The deceased thereupon ran his hand in his pocket and drew something out, and, as the deceased advanced upon the accused, the accused cut him with his knife. In applying the doctrine of reasonable doubt to this defense, the trial judge gave the following instruction "If you believe, from the evidence, and believe it beyond a reasonable doubt, that this defendant on trial and Stevens were in a controversy, and in that controversy Stevens ran his hand in his pocket, something like that, and drew out something, and made the defendant believe honestly that a felony was about to be visited on him, or his life was in danger at the hands of Stevens, and he simply cut him with his knife to keep him from visiting on him a felony or taking his life, then it would be justifiable homicide." This charge was objected to on the ground that it put upon the accused the burden of establishing his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, a burden not placed upon him by law. Counsel for the state concede that the instruction was erroneous, but they insist that it was harmless, because the verdict was voluntary manslaughter, and this charge related to the law of self-defense, and besides it was manifestly a slip of the tongue, which did not, and could not, mislead the jury; the court repeatedly instructing them that the accused was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Malone
...v. State, 71 Tex. Crim. 189; State v. Manns, 48 W. Va. 480; State v. Dillard, 59 W. Va. 197; People v. Turner, 269 Pac. 204; McDonald v. State, 12 Ga. App. 526; State v. Hoerner, 215 N.W. 277; State v. Burzette, 222 N.W. 394; State v. Yates, 132 Iowa, 475; State v. Partipilo, 139 Iowa, 474;......
-
State v. Malone
... ... State v. Hickam, 95 Mo. 322; ... People v. Shanley, 63 N.Y.S. 449, 49 A.D. 56; ... State v. Pratt, 50 Tex. Crim. 227; Lyons v ... State, 71 Tex. Crim. 189; State v. Manns, 48 ... W.Va. 480; State v. Dillard, 59 W.Va. 197; ... People v. Turner, 269 P. 204; McDonald v ... State, 12 Ga.App. 526; State v. Hoerner, 215 ... N.W. 277; State v. Burzette, 222 N.W. 394; State ... v. Yates, 132 Iowa 475; State v. Partipilo, 139 ... Iowa 474; State v. Conda, 156 La. 679; State v ... Linders, 154 La. 65; State v. Vial, 153 La ... 883; State v ... ...
-
Weaver v. State
...meritorious and would demand a reversal under the principle laid down in Dorsey v. State, 110 Ga. 331, 332, 35 S.E. 651; McDonald v. State, 12 Ga.App. 526, 77 S.E. 655; Lowry v. State, 6 Ga.App. 541, 65 S.E. 353; Nixon v. State, 14 Ga.App. 261, 263, 80 S.E. 513. Under the principle announce......
-
Nixon v. State
...have no way of telling how much influence it may have had on the jury in arriving at their verdict. The decision in McDonald v. State, 12 Ga. App. 526, 77 S. E. 655, is directly in point and is controlling. 3. The nineteenth ground of the motion for a new trial assigns error because the cou......