Mize v. State, 50600
| Decision Date | 02 September 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 50600,50600,3 |
| Citation | 218 S.E.2d 450,135 Ga.App. 561 |
| Parties | Gregory MIZE v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Robinson, Harben, Armstrong & Millikan, Sam S. Harben, Jr., Gainesville, Kennedy, Bussey, Sampson & Spaulding, Benjamin W. Spaulding, Atlanta, for appellant.
Douglas E. Smith, Sol., Gainesville, for appellee.
1. The defendant was convicted under an accusation couched in the language of Code § 26-1304(b): 'A person commits simple battery when he . . . (b) intentionally causes physical harm to another.' The evidence showed that the prosecutrix, her husband and others were standing in line at a restaurant when she was 'grabbed in the side,' 'grabbed firmly,' 'squeezed' and 'pinched.' It is contended that these acts fail to show physical harm.
In a case of simple battery there is no requirement that the victim receive great bodily harm. People v. Garrett, 11 Ill.App.3d 142, 296 N.E.2d 44, 46. Under our former Code § 26-1408 battery was defined as an unlawful beating, nevertheless the language was stretched to include the slightest touching in a proscribed manner. Yarborough v. State, 17 Ga.App. 828, 88 S.E. 710; Goodrum v. State, 60 Ga. 509. Such cases would now constitute battery only under Code § 26-1304(a). But some physical pain may be presumed to result from being 'firmly grabbed' and 'squeezed.' The evidence sufficiently showed a simple battery under subsection (b).
2. There was additional evidence that the prosecutrix had not actually seen the defendant grab her, but knew it was the defendant because he was standing close beside her staring at her, that he gave her an insulting stare, and that she felt insulted. In this connection the defendant offered a request to charge that if the jury had a reasonable doubt that the defendant caused her physical harm they may acquit, and 'physical harm means just what it says, and does not include wounded feelings or that she was offended.' This is a true statement, because mere looks never constitute a battery, and a physical contact which is of an insulting nature is included only under Code § 26-1304(a), with which the defendant was not charged. The court instructed the jury merely that if they had a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt they should acquit, and failure to instruct in accordance with the request was undoubtedly prejudicial because he further told them that simple battery consisted of either intentionally making physical ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Futch v. State
...the victim's head and pushed her into a window, causing her to fall to the floor and scream in pain). 17.Compare Mize v. State, 135 Ga.App. 561, 561(1), 218 S.E.2d 450 (1975) (holding that some physical harm may be presumed from being “firmly grabbed” and “squeezed” in cases of simple batte......
-
Mize v. State, 52773
...of simple battery based on a single occurrence. The previous cases are reported in 131 Ga.App. 538, 206 S.E.2d 530 and 135 Ga.App. 561, 218 S.E.2d 450. At this third trial substantially the same evidence concerning the offense was presented as is recited in the previous reports. We find thr......
-
Owens v. State
...or "squeezed" and that such pain is sufficient to establish "physical harm" in a prosecution for simple battery. See Mize v. State, 135 Ga.App. 561(1), 218 S.E.2d 450 (1975). 4. The court erred, however, in charging that a person may commit the offense of simple battery either by intentiona......
-
Dinnan v. State, s. 68881
...causing of physical harm as charged by merely finding an insulting touching not involving pain. As was held in Mize v. State, 135 Ga.App. 561, 218 S.E.2d 450, physical contact which is of an insulting nature is a separate form of battery which must be specifically charged. Thus a charge tha......