Sanders v. State
| Decision Date | 09 March 1921 |
| Docket Number | 11962. |
| Citation | 106 S.E. 314,26 Ga.App. 475 |
| Parties | SANDERS v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
On the trial of an indictment for murder, where the defendant's statement and the evidence tended to show, as one of the legitimate views thereof, that the families of the accused and the decedent were at enmity; that, in a quarrel between the accused and his father on one side and the decedent and his companions on the other, the decedent shot and wounded both the accused and his father; and that, although the decedent then ceased his assault, the accused ran to his home near by, armed himself with a pistol, returned to the scene of the assault, and, without additional cause or excuse, save the heat of passion engendered by the quarrel, shot and killed the decedent--the court did not err in giving in charge to the jury the law of voluntary manslaughter.
Without a mutual intent to fight, there can be no mutual combat; but that intent, like any other intent, may be manifested by the acts and conduct of the parties and the circumstances surrounding them at the time of the combat, as well as the circumstances leading up to and culminating in such combat. The question of intent is peculiarly for the jury where there is any evidence from which it may be inferred. In the instant case the court did not err in referring that question to the jury, by giving them in charge the law applicable to mutual combat.
When considered in the light of the entire charge of the court and the facts of the case, none of the instructions complained of contain reversible error.
The evidence authorized the verdict, and it was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Under Pen. Code 1910, §§ 70, 74, justification for a homicide cannot be based on a deadly assault which has been completely ended unless the assailant manifests some apparent purpose to renew or continue it.
Where defendant and his father were assaulted by decedent, and defendant ran home, armed himself with a pistol, and left his place of safety to enter or recommence the affray and remained in it until decedent was mortally wounded, the killing was not justifiable under Pen. Code 1910, § 73 relative to a killing in mutual combat.
Error from Superior Court, Putnam County; J. B. Park, Judge.
Freddie Sanders was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Stubbs & Duke, of Eatonton, for plaintiff in error.
Doyle Campbell, Sol. Gen., and A. Y. Clement, both of Monticello for the State.
Freddie Sanders was indicted jointly with his father, West Sanders for the murder of John Adams, and, being separately tried, the son was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter. From the defendant's statement and the conflicting evidence, the jury were authorized to find the following facts: On the day before the homicide West Sanders wrongfully killed a hog belonging to Adams, while Fred Sanders and his sister went to the Adams home, during his absence, assaulted and beat his wife, and forcibly took and carried away a pistol belonging to Adams. But later, either on the same day or at some time during the night, Adams and West Sanders mutually adjusted their differences by an agreement that Sanders should either pay for the hog he had killed or replace it with one of his own. On the occasion of the homicide Adams, with two companions, had started to the Sanders home to demand the return of his pistol, but met both West and Fred Sanders in the road near their home, where, in a discussion of the troubles of the preceding day, a quarrel ensued, which terminated in both West and Fred Sanders, who were then unarmed, being shot and wounded by Adams. As to what then followed, the defendant in his statement to the court and jury, said:
"I didn't have anything in my hand, and I ran to the house and got the pistol out of the washstand drawer, and come back and shot him and killed him."
In a supplemental statement, made after the testimony was closed, the defendant further said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial