Smith v. State

• Decision Date: 14 May 1906
• Citation: 54 S.E. 124,125 Ga. 300
• Parties: SMITH v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

54 S.E. 124

125 Ga. 300

SMITH v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

May 14, 1906

Syllabus by the Court.

A ground of a motion for a new trial that "the court erred in not charging the jury the law of voluntary manslaughter" is too vague and indefinite an assignment of error to raise any question for determination by this court.

There were no other errors of law complained of, the evidence warranted the verdict, and the trial court properly refused to grant a new trial.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; L. S. Roan, Judge.

Walter Smith was convicted of assault with intent to kill, and brings error. Affirmed.

Loundes Calhoun, for plaintiff in error.

C. D Hill, Sol. Gen., for the State.

BECK J.

Smith was convicted of the offense of assault with intent to murder. The evidence disclosed that he boarded the rear platform of a trolley car, and, when approached by the conductor, refused to pay his fare. He was made to do so however, by a police officer who was on the car. A few minutes after this the policeman left the car and the accused commenced to act in a disorderly manner, using profane language and continually pulling the bell cord and ringing the signal bell. The conductor closed the door of the car, so that the misbehavior of the defendant might not disturb the passengers who were riding inside the car. The defendant kept up his disorderly conduct, and the conductor remonstrated with him, telling him that Judge Broyles had fined people for doing less than that, whereupon the accused said, "God damn you and Judge Broyles, too." The conductor then "punched" or struck him with his fist, and the accused stabbed him with a knife; the blow being of such force that the instrument penetrated into the conductor's lungs. The defendant made a motion for a new trial upon the general grounds and because of the court's failure to charge the law of voluntary manslaughter. The motion was overruled, and he excepted.

As the verdict was amply sustained by the evidence, the judgment refusing the motion for a new trial must be affirmed; the only other assignment of error besides the general grounds being that "the court erred in not charging the jury the law of voluntary manslaughter." This assignment is too vague and indefinite to raise any question for determination by this court. Assignments of error should be clear distinct, and definite, and should specify the particular or particulars...