Paschal v. State
| Decision Date | 11 May 1906 |
| Citation | 54 S.E. 172,125 Ga. 279 |
| Parties | PASCHAL. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Homicide — Assault with Intent to Kill — Evidence.
When an indictment charges the commission of an assault with intent to murder by using a knife such as was likely to produce death, the proof must show that it was a weapon of this character. This may be done by producing the knife itself or introducing other satisfactory evidence to establish the fact, but not by evidence which falls short of that character of proof which will justify an inference by the jury that the knife used was in truth a deadly weapon.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; L. S. Roan, Judge.
Chandler Paschal was convicted of assault with intent to kill, and brings error. Reversed.
R. R. Shropshire, for plaintiff in error.
C. D. Hill, Sol. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error was indicted for the offense of assault with intent to murder. The assault was alleged to have been made with "a knife, being a weapon likely to produce death." He was convicted, and moved for a new trial, which was refused, and he excepts.
The evidence disclosed that the accused had formerly lived in illicit relation with the woman alleged to have been assaulted, but that they were not living together at the time of the assault. She testified: About two weeks prior to the occurrence, she and the accused had a quarrel. On the night before she was cut, she had seen the accused. She was working at a restaurant, and late Sunday evening the accused sent a messenger to her with the request that he be allowed to see her. She told his messenger, if the accused wished to see her, for him to come to the place where she was at work. In about 15 minutes the accused came to the restaurant, and just as he reached the door two men pushed it open. He called out the witness, and said to her, "Alberta, you going home to-night?" She replied, "No, I don't think I will, " and he said, "Well, the reason I asked you is, I want you to go home and doctor on me; I am sick." She then said: He replied: She told him she was not going, and that she intended to lock her house up. Thereupon he grabbed her in the collar, jerked her up to him, put his knife in her side, and started to lift her "up on the blade." When he put the knife in her side, she fell back and screamed three times as loud as she could. Her screams "drawed the police and a whole crowd of people, and that is all there was to it." The accused cut her with a knife. She saw the knife, but did not know its size. She was stabbed only once; stayed in the hospital nine days....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hanvey v. State, 75135
......State, 178 Ga.App. 343, 344(1), 343 S.E.2d 401. In reaching this conclusion we reject defendant's contention that the State was required to prove that the pillow was a deadly weapon. Such proof was not necessary in proving aggravated assault (with intent to murder). Paschal v. State, 125 Ga. 279, 280, 54 S.E. 172. Moreover, the indictment did not allege that the aggravated ASSAULT[186 Ga.App. 691] was made with "a weapon likely to produce death.". In regard to the offense of rape, defendant contends that as the victim did not see the defendant place ......
-
Scroggins v. State
...the use of a weapon likely to produce death, then of course that element must be proved. Id. at 694, 148 S.E. 731; Paschal v. State, 125 Ga. 279, 280, 54 S.E. 172; Walker v. State, 124 Ga. 440, 441, 52 S.E. 738; Johnson v. State, 92 Ga. 36, 38, 17 S.E. 974; Monday v. State, 32 Ga. Despite t......
- Davis v. State
- Davis v. State