Sanford v. State
| Decision Date | 07 May 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 21611,21611 |
| Citation | 125 S.E.2d 478,217 Ga. 825 |
| Parties | Arnold SANFORD v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where the issue of insanity at the time of the commission of an alleged offense is raised, it is mandatory to charge Code Ann., § 27-1503 (Ga.L.1952, pp. 205, 206), relating to the form of the jury's verdict in case they should find the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity.
2. Intent to steal is a substantial element of the offense of robbery, and failure to charge on such intent is error.
3. It was error to charge that the law does not attempt to measure the degree of insanity which renders a man or a woman responsible for his or her acts, and further, that such is a question for the jury.
4. There was evidence to authorize a charge on the law of admissions.
5. The general grounds were not argued by brief or orally in this court, and will be considered as abandoned.
Jim Hudson, Athens, for plaintiff in error.
D. M. Pollock, Sol. Gen., Monroe, Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Rubye G. Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for defendant in error.
The exception here is to a denial of a motion for a new trial based on the general and four special grounds.
The defendant Arnold Sanford was indicted and convicted for the offense of armed robbery for which he received a sentence of 15 to 20 years.
1. The issue of insanity was made by the evidence, on which subject the trial court charged. In closing the charge the trial court instructed the jury as to the various forms their verdict should take if they found for acquittal, guilty, guilty with recommendation of mercy, and guilty with a recommendation of 4 to 20 years. It is urged in special ground 1 that when the issue of insanity was charged on and raised by the evidence, there should have been an instruction as to the form the verdict should take if the jury found the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity. The objection is well founded, and it was clearly error to have failed so to charge. Code Ann., § 27-1503 (Ga.L.1952, pp. 205, 206), provides: 'In all criminal trials in any of the courts of this State wherein an accused shall contend that he was insane or mentally incompetent under the law at the time the act or acts charged against him were committed, the trial judge shall instruct the jury that, in case of acquittal on such contention, the jury shall specify in their verdict that the accused was acquitted because of mental irresponsibility or insanity at the time of the commission of the act. * * *' This act is mandatory that the trial judge shall instruct the jury in line with the provisions of the act, and the failure to thus instruct the jury in this connection was error. Bailey v. State, 210 Ga. 52(1a), 77 S.E.2d 511.
2. Special ground 2 urges that the court erred when it failed to charge that intent to steal was a substantial element in the commission of the offense of robbery and that such failure was prejudicial to the defendant since it took away his defense that he took the pistol for the purpose of preventing the guard from impeding his escape from the university grounds. There was no request to charge but the defendant contends that the failure so to charge was error because intent is such a vital part of the offense of robbery. With this contention we agree. Code Ann., § 26-2501 (Ga.L.1957, pp. 261, 262), defines robbery as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. McCracken
...20 Use of this verdict alternative is common in state courts, usually resting on statutory provisions. See, e. g., Sanford v. State, 217 Ga. 825, 125 S.E.2d 478 (1962), relying on Ga.Code Ann. § 27-1503 (1972); Tex.Code Crim.Pro. Vernon's Ann. art. 46.02 Section 2(c)(2) (Supp.1972-73). Alth......
-
Thomas v. State
...the property was taken with the intent to steal.' Nelson v. State, 203 Ga. 330, 46 S.E.2d 488, 493 (1948). See also Sanford v. State, 217 Ga. 825, 125 S.E.2d 478, 479 (1962); McKuhen v. State, 102 Ga.App. 75, 115 S.E.2d 625, 626 And, in State v. Mundy, 265 N.C. 528, 144 S.E.2d 572 (1965), t......
-
Bowers v. State, 59455
...the jury as to the proper form of their verdict. See Code Ann. § 27-1503, supra. Bailey v. State, 210 Ga. 52(1), supra; Sanford v. State, 217 Ga. 825(1), 125 S.E.2d 478; Morgan v. State, 224 Ga. 604, 605(2), 163 S.E.2d 690. The evidence submitted was insufficient to create the issue of insa......
-
Aldridge v. State
...by pointing out that "the better practice is to charge only the mandatory part of Code Ann. § 27-1503 as stated in Sanford v. State, (217 Ga. 825, 125 S.E.2d 478 (1962))." 233 Ga. at 262, 210 S.E.2d 797. The mandatory part as stated in Sanford is only the first sentence of the code section ......