Quarles v. State
| Decision Date | 09 January 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 48482,No. 1,48482,1 |
| Citation | 130 Ga.App. 756,204 S.E.2d 467 |
| Parties | Bobby QUARLES v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Lawson E. Thompson, Washington, for appellant.
Kenneth E. Goolsby, Dist. Atty., Thomson, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The defendant, appellant here, along with a co-defendant was tried on a two-count indictment for aggravated assault of two named individuals and was convicted by the jury. From the sentence entered upon the jury's verdict, the defendant appeals to this court. Held:
1. It is contended that the trial judge erred in overruling the defendant's motion to quash the indictment. The motion was predicated on the ground that the indictment included two entirely separate and distinct crimes and was hence not sustainable.
In Webb v. State, 177 Ga. 414, 170 S.E. 252, the Supreme Court held that an indictment was not subject to demurrer which sought to join 'in five separate counts, five separate and distinct criminal charges and transactions involving distinct and separate offenses alleged to have been committed at separate and distinct times and against separate and distinct persons or individuals.' Ivester v. State, 75 Ga.App. 600(2), 44 S.E.2d 61; Pippin v. State, 205 Ga. 316(2), 53 S.E.2d 482. For later cases upholding the propriety of charging separate crimes in separate counts of the indictment, see Wells v. State, 126 Ga.App. 130, 132, 190 S.E.2d 106; Edwards v. State, 226 Ga. 811(1), 177 S.E.2d 668; Steele v. State, 227 Ga. 653, 658, 182 S.E.2d 475; Wingfield v. State, 231 Ga. 92, 200 S.E.2d 708. As pointed out in Loftin v. State, 230 Ga. 92, 93, 195 S.E.2d 402, § 26-506 of the Criminal Code of Georgia (Ga.L.1968, pp. 1249, 1267) requires a single prosecution for multiple offenses involving the same conduct. After an exhaustive review of cases under the former law and considering the effect of Code Ann. § 26-506, the Supreme Court hedl it was not error to try separate offenses together where they were part of a single transaction. Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 72, 179 S.E.2d 76. This enumeration of error is without merit.
2. It is also urged that the indictment charges the aggravated assault was committed by the use of 'fists' which are not a dangerous weapon and that there is no evidence to sustain the count of the indictment so alleging.
We recognize that fists per se are not a deadly weapon within the meaning of § 26-1302 of the Criminal Code of Georgia (Ga.L.1968, pp. 1249, 1280). Novertheless, they may be found to be a deadly weapon by the jury depending on the manner and means of their use, the wounds inflicted, etc. See Finch v. State, 98 Ga.App 480, 106 S.E.2d 86; Wright v. State, 168 Ga. 690, 694, 148 S.E. 731....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Davis
...the wounds inflicted, and other relevant facts. Accord State v. Grumbles, 104 N.C.App. 766, 411 S.E.2d 407 (1991); Quarles v. State, 130 Ga.App. 756, 204 S.E.2d 467 (1974). We conclude that the trial judge did not err in charging the jury that a hand or fist could constitute a deadly weapon......
-
Eady v. State
...330 S.E.2d 383, supra; Meminger v. State, 160 Ga.App. 509, 287 S.E.2d 296 (1981) (overruled on a different point); Quarles v. State, 130 Ga.App. 756, 204 S.E.2d 467 (1974); Williams v. State, 127 Ga.App. 386, 193 S.E.2d 633 (1972). Here we cannot say as a matter of law that the way the pill......
-
Martin v. State, 57852
...victim, the jury was authorized to find that it was a deadly weapon within the meaning of Code Ann. § 26-1302(b). Quarles v. State, 130 Ga.App. 756(2), 204 S.E.2d 467 (1974); Ellis v. State, 137 Ga.App. 834, 836(2), 224 S.E.2d 799 (1976). The evidence also showed that the victim was then fo......
-
Spaulding v. State
...weapon is properly for the jury's determination. Banks v. State, 169 Ga.App. 571, 572, 314 S.E.2d 235 (1984); Quarles v. State, 130 Ga.App. 756(2), 204 S.E.2d 467 (1974). The evidence here was sufficient to enable any rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of the offense of agg......