Ray v. State, 76269
| Decision Date | 24 May 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 76269,76269 |
| Citation | 370 S.E.2d 629,187 Ga.App. 451 |
| Parties | RAY v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Douglas L. Breault, William J. Mason, Columbus, for appellant.
William J. Smith, Dist. Atty., Michael D. Reynolds, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Appellant Joe Ray appeals his conviction of involuntary manslaughter, committed while in the commission of a lawful act in an unlawful manner in violation of OCGA § 16-5-3(b). Appellant, his friend Branscomb, and two ladies had been playing cards on the porch of a duplex owned by Branscomb. These four people were sitting on the lighted porch talking, when the deceased drove up in a van with another person. Earlier in the day, the deceased had visited the house on two occasions, once looking for and once visiting with a female occupant of the other half of the duplex. The deceased exited the van and stood behind appellant while inquiring of Branscomb whether the female occupant of the duplex was at home yet. Appellant politely requested the deceased not to stand behind him. When the deceased refused the request, the appellant asked again. The deceased refused to move after the second request. According to the appellant, at this point the deceased said: "Well, who the hell do you think you are?" and put both of his hands in his pockets. When the deceased did this, appellant jumped up, kicking his chair away; the deceased braced himself as if he wanted to fight and "acted like he was going to attack" the appellant. The appellant drew a loaded pistol from his pocket and struck the deceased with it. The gun fell on the porch and appellant retrieved it. The deceased stayed on his feet after being struck and "lunged back" at the deceased. At this point the appellant perceived that the deceased "could have did me really some damage," and he struck the deceased a second time with the pistol. The pistol discharged killing the deceased. The appellant further testified that he did not intend to kill the deceased, that he did not pull the trigger of the pistol, and that the discharge of the pistol was an accident. The trial court's charge to the jury included instructions on malice murder, felony murder, both statutory types of involuntary manslaughter and accident. However, the trial court refused to charge on both self-defense and accident and ultimately declined to give the defense-requested self-defense instruction. Held:
Appellant enumerates as error that "the Trial Court erred in failing to give appellant's written request to charge on the issue of self-defense." In his brief the appellant argues that a court may charge the jury on both the defense of accident and the defense of self-defense, even though the two defenses "may be inconsistent." He also argues that
The basis for this appeal, in fact, is appellant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnett v. State
...issues as appellant failed to make a timely objection at trial on the specific grounds he attempts to assert on appeal. Ray v. State, 187 Ga.App. 451, 452, 370 S.E.2d 629; compare Mundy v. State, 259 Ga. 634(5), 385 S.E.2d 666. Further, the trial court instructed the jury that a statement m......
-
Reddin v. State
...the testimony of the paramedic was within the ken of the jury, by failing to object on those specific grounds at trial. Ray v. State, 187 Ga.App. 451, 452, 370 S.E.2d 629. Additionally, as the opinion testimony was cumulative of other admissible evidence of record, any occurring error in it......
-
Ross v. State
...evidence of the rape kit, there exists nothing for us to review concerning its admission into evidence. See generally Ray v. State, 187 Ga.App. 451, 452, 370 S.E.2d 629. Moreover, assuming arguendo error of constitutional magnitude had occurred as asserted in appellant's brief (denial of a ......
-
White v. State
...in appellant's first enumeration were not preserved on appeal. Lawton v. State, 259 Ga. 855, 856(2), 388 S.E.2d 691; Ray v. State, 187 Ga.App. 451, 452, 370 S.E.2d 629. 2. Appellant contends that one of his jurors knew that appellant had been tried and found guilty in 1992, but nevertheless......