Richards v. State
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
| Writing for the Court | BECK |
| Citation | 70 S.E. 868,136 Ga. 67 |
| Decision Date | 14 March 1911 |
| Parties | RICHARDS. v. STATE. |
70 S.E. 868
136 Ga. 67
RICHARDS.
v.
STATE.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
March 14, 1911.
1. Criminal Law (§ 824*)—Murder—Instructions.
Under the evidence submitted by the state on the trial, the killing of the decedent by the accused was murder, and there was no evidence to authorize the jury to find the defendant guilty of the crime of involuntary manslaughter in the commission of an unlawful act. Consequently the court did not err in failing to charge the jury upon that grade of homicide, even if such a charge would have been authorized under the statement made by the accused; there being no written request made for a charge upon that subject.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 615, 651; Dec. Dig. § 824.*]
2. Criminal Law (§ 641*) — Trial — Reception of Verdict in Absence of Accused's Counsel.
The verdict in this case was received and published in open court in the absence of defendant's counsel, and one ground of the motion for a new trial complains of the reception of the verdict under these circumstances. It appears from a note by the court, relative to this ground, that before counsel for the accused left the courtroom he was informed by the court "that inasmuch as the hour was late, and the court wished to discharge the jury without unnecessary delay, he must remain near by in the event the jury agreed. He [counsel] replied that he would be near by, and if not in or near the courthouse he would be found at his boarding house. When the judge received informa tion * * * that a verdict had been reached, he went to the courthouse and ordered [counsel] sent for at his boarding house. The bailiff returned and stated that counsel was not there. The court then had him called from the window, and, after waiting a reasonable time and not being able to get him present, ordered the jury brought in and received the verdict. * * * Defendant was present in the court when the verdict was received." Held that, under the foregoing facts and circumstances, the refusal to grant a new trial on the ground of the absence of defendant's counsel at the time of the reception of the verdict was not error. Roberson v. State, 70 S. E. 175.
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State, 2396.
...of other cases. Smith v. State, 60 Ga. 430; Lassiter v. State, 67 Ga. 739; Roberson v. State, 135 Ga. 654, 70 S.E. 175; Richards v. State, 136 Ga. 67, 70 S.E. 868; Baldwin v. State, 138 Ga. 349, 75 S.E. 324. But in these cases new trials were not granted, under the special facts involved. I......
-
Parker v. State, 14757.
...their province. Findley v. State, 125 Ga. 579, 54 S.E. 106; Davis v. State, 120 Ga. 843(3), 48 S.E. 305; Barnett v. State, 136 Ga. 65(4), 70 S.E. 868; Jefferson v. State, 137 Ga. 382(3), 73 S.E. 499; Phillips v. State, 163 Ga. 12(2), 135 S.E. 421. The case differs on its facts from Whitaker......
-
Warren v. State, (No. 5391.)
...counsel at the time of the reception of the verdict was not error. Roberson v. State, 135 Ga. 654, 70 S. E. 175; Richards v. State, 136 Ga. 67, 70 S. E. 868." The case of Roberson v. State, supra, is very close in point, and supports the court in the conclusion announced above. It is stated......
-
Duke v. State, 39050
...of other cases. Smith v. State, 60 Ga. 430; Lassiter v. State, 67 Ga. 739; Roberson v. State, 135 Ga. 654, 70 S.E. 175; Richards v. State, 136 Ga. 67, 70 S.E. 868; Baldwin v. State, 138 Ga. 349, 75 S.E. 324.' Borwn v. State, 151 Ga. 497, 500, 107 S.E. 536, 538. In that case the ruling in O'......
-
Lovvorn v. Johnston, No. 9570.
...Mayes, 113 Cal. 618, 45 R. 860; Hommer v. State, 85 Md. 562, 37 A. 26; Whitehurst v. State, 3 Ala.App. 88, 57 So. 1026; Richards v. State, 136 Ga. 67, 70 So. 868; Schwartz v. State, 103 Miss. 711, 60 So. 732; Commonwealth v. Polens, 327 Pa. 554, 194 A. 652. The courts have been called upon ......
-
Morton v. State, No. 13287.
...been present and not waived it. O'Bannon v. State, 76 Ga. 29 (2), 31; Baldwin v. State, 138 Ga. 349, 350, 75 S. E. 324; Richards v. State, 136 Ga. 67 (2), 70 S.E. 868; Roberson v. State, 135 Ga. 654 (2), 655, 70 S.E. 175. 3. The use of the word "ideal" in a general instruction as to the dut......
-
Miller v. State, (No. 4,984.)
...decision in the Hopson Case. This plainly appears from the decisions in Roberson v. State, 135 Ga. 654, 70 S. E. 175, Richards v. State, 136 Ga. 67, 70 S. E. 868, and Baldwin v. State, 138 Ga. 349, 75 S. E. 324. If the case sub judice were identical upon its facts with the Hopson Case, it w......
-
Duke v. State, No. 39050
...of other cases. Smith v. State, 60 Ga. 430; Lassiter v. State, 67 Ga. 739; Roberson v. State, 135 Ga. 654, 70 S.E. 175; Richards v. State, 136 Ga. 67, 70 S.E. 868; Baldwin v. State, 138 Ga. 349, 75 S.E. 324.' Borwn v. State, 151 Ga. 497, 500, 107 S.E. 536, 538. In that case the ruling in O'......