Simpson v. State

• Decision Date: 11 February 1913
• Docket Number: (No. 4,499.)
• Citation: 12 Ga.App. 292,77 S.E. 105
• Parties: SIMPSON. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

77 S.E. 105

12 Ga.App. 292

SIMPSON.

v.STATE.

(No. 4, 499.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Feb. 11, 1913.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Voluntary Manslaughter — Evidence_ Instructions.

The evidence authorized the court to instruct the jury upon the subject of voluntary manslaughter.

2. Homicide (§ 300^*) — Self-Defense — Instructions.

The trial judge fully and correctly presented to the jury the rules of law applicable to a case of homicide, where it is sought to justify it by the reasonable fears of the slayer, and an instruction, in this connection, that "the law does not justify a killing by one who believes he has grounds to fear that he will be injured, without any regard to the extent of the injury, " was not error.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. §§ 614-632; Dee. Dig. § 300.*]

3. Criminal Law (§ 1172*)—Appeal and Error—Right to Allege Error—Prejudice.

The accused was not convicted of murder, but of voluntary manslaughter. For this reason the instructions upon the subject of malice could not have been prejudicial to the accused in any of the respects or for any of the reasons pointed out in the assignments of error. One tried for murder, but convicted only of manslaughter, cannot successfully assign error upon instructions of the trial judge as to malice, without showing that the instructions alleged to be erroneous in some way influenced and conduced to the verdict actually rendered.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3128, 3154, 3157, 3159-3163; Dec. Dig. § 1172.*]

4. Criminal Law (§ 561*) — Evidence — Included Offenses—Reasonable Doubt.

If a jury, upon the trial of a criminal case, are satisfied from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty of one of two or more offenses of which the defendant may lawfully be convicted under the indictment against him, but have reasonable doubt as to which of these offenses the defendant is guilty of, it is their duty to give him the benefit of the doubt, and find him guilty only of the lower grade of offense, and the trial judge did not err in instructing the jury to this effect.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 1267; Dec. Dig. § 561.*]

5. Criminal Law (§§ 1064, 1114*)—Appeal-Assignments of Error—Motion for New Trial—Bill of Exceptions.

Complaints presented only in the brief, and not embodied in the assignments of error in the motion for new trial, nor in the bill of exceptions, though urged in argument, cannot be considered.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2674-2684, 2918, 2921; Dec. Dig. §§ 1004, 1114.*]

6. Verdict—Evidence.

The evidence authorized the verdict, and there was no error in refusing a new trial.

Error from Superior Court, Pulaski County; J. H. Martin, Judge.

J. D. Simpson was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and he brings error. Affirmed.

M. H. Boyer and H. E Coates, both of Hawkinsville, and Jno. R. Cooper, of Macon, for plaintiff in error.

E. D. Graham, Sol. Gen., of McRae, and W. L. & Warren...