Patrick v. State

Decision Date18 September 1947
Docket Number31563.
CitationPatrick v. State, 75 Ga.App. 687, 44 S.E.2d 297 (Ga. App. 1947)
PartiesPATRICK v. STATE.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Syllabus by the Court.

1. To sustain a conviction on circumstantial evidence only, the State must prove facts that are not only consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.

2. Where the facts in evidence and all reasonable deductions therefrom present two theories, one of guilt and the other consistent with innocence, the justice and humanity of the law compel the acceptance of the theory which is consistent with innocence. Davis v. State, 13 Ga.App. 142(1), 78 S.E. 866.

Jesse Patrick was indicted for the offense of the murder of Bud Patrick and was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. He filed motion for new trial on the general grounds and several special grounds, the original motion for new trial and the amended motion was over ruled by the trial judge and this case is before this court by bill of exceptions.

The evidence produced on the trial was as follows: F. Q. Sammon the undertaker, who prepared the body of the deceased Bud Patrick for burial, testified that he was badly bruised about the face and that most of the bruises on the deceased's face were located from his eyes to the top of his forehead. He also testified that he had a bruise on his chest but it was from an old standing, older than the injuries about his eyes. He also testified that he had known the deceased for a long number of years; that he had had high blood pressure for some time; that 2 weeks prior to his death he had carried him in an ambulance to the hospital. Also that he was familiar with the house where the deceased lived; that the back porch is up 2 or 3 feet off the ground; that there are cement steps down to the ground and a well nearby with cement all around it. Also from his examination of the wounds on the deceased in his opinion the same could have been made by a fall.

Dr. W P. Ezzard, the doctor, who examined the deceased before he died, testified that he was called to the home of the deceased; that the deceased was not conscious, and deceased was paralyzed on his left side; that deceased had bruises around his face, on his head, and around his right side the skin was purplish and blue; that the deceased must have died from cerebral hemorrhage; that a patient who was suffering from high blood pressure received a lick or blow from a blunt instrument or first of a human being, that this had a tendency to produce a cerebral hemorrhage.

Irwin Chesser, a neighbor, testified; that Jesse Patrick came to his place Friday afternoon before Mr. Bud Patrick died, and talked to him at Mr. Chesser's corn crib; that at the time Jesse Patrick told Mr. Chesser about slapping his father and why he slapped him; that Jesse Patrick was drinking at this time. Irwin Chesser testified also about the bruises on Bud Patrick's face and head and that Jesse Patrick did not tell him that his father fell off the porch, and did not ask him to get in the house; that Jesse Patrick came to his house twice that Friday night, the second time to ask about his mother, and ask Mr. Chesser if he saw her, she was too old to lay out all night; that, Bud Patrick, the deceased was in bad health, that he had high blood pressure.

Raymond Knight, a neighbor, testified; that he saw two of Bud Patrick's granddaughters on the night or about sundown; that they came running to his house, one barefooted and the other one had on shoes and they were running and seemed to be scared; and that Raymond Knight carried the girls to Lawrenceville; that the witness saw Jesse Patrick in Lawrenceville the day this happened; and that Jesse Patrick was drinking.

Mrs Dora Patrick, the wife of the deceased and the mother of the accused, testified that he was not in the house when the girls left to go to Mr. Chesser's and that they went to tell J. W. not to come home as Jesse was mad at him and Jesse was kinder drinking; that after the girls left Bud Patrick, the deceased, fell from the porch; that she did not see her son hit his father; also that the general condition of the health of the deceased was bad. He got to where he could hardly stand up; didn't have any use of his legs hardly to get about; was troubled with falling about and complained of his head swimming; that the wound on his body the undertaker testified about, was caused from a fall out in the crib one evening; he fell at the woodpile one day and skinned his face up; he fell on other occasions. There was a screen door on the cook room door where you go on the back porch. Around 7 or 8 o'clock on the occasion in question the deceased got up from the table, stepped out, pushed the screen door open, and fell out the porch. Jesse said he believed 'Pa' fell out there and he went...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
14 cases
  • Roura v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • June 23, 1994
    ...charge, as requested, was not held to be reversible error. The charge, which the Supreme Court recites is "based on Patrick v. State, 75 Ga.App. 687, 44 S.E.2d 297 (1947)," is, according to it, "appropriate only when all of the evidence is circumstantial. [Cit.]" General v. State, 256 Ga. 3......
  • Stonaker v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 13, 1975
    ...of guilt and the other consistent with innocence, the theory consistent with innocence must be accepted. Defendant cites Patrick v. State, 75 Ga.App. 687, 44 S.E.2d 297, and Davis v. State, 13 Ga.App. 142, 78 S.E. 866. These cases do not deal with failure to charge, but with the sufficiency......
  • Howard v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • January 5, 1979
    ...of the decedent did not constitute reversible error. Floyd v. State, 233 Ga. 280(III), 210 S.E.2d 810. 4. Based on Patrick v. State, 75 Ga.App. 687(2), 44 S.E.2d 297, appellant submitted a written request to charge as follows: "Where the facts in evidence and all reasonable deductions there......
  • Russell v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • November 4, 1981
    ...showed a theory consistent with his innocence contending he was so drunk as not to be aware of the burglary, citing Patrick v. State, 75 Ga.App. 687(2), 691, 44 S.E. 297. However, the trial court did charge on circumstantial evidence alone as not justifying a finding of guilty unless the ci......
  • Get Started for Free