Solesbee v. State
| Decision Date | 13 July 1948 |
| Docket Number | 16272. |
| Parties | SOLESBEE v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Benj. E. Pierce and Pierce Bros., all of Augusta, for plaintiff in error.
H W. Nelson, Sol. Gen., of Adel, Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., and John Sammons Bell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. The verdict convicting the accused of the offense of murder is supported by the evidence, which includes a signed statement made by the accused, showing that the killing resulted while the defendant was in the execution of his plan to rob the deceased of his automobile. As a means of effectuating the robbery, the accused pointed a loaded pistol at and required the deceased to lie on his stomach upon the ground and place his hands behind him. Then, as the accused started to fasten the hands of the deceased, the deceased kicked him in the stomach and the pistol was discharged, the bullet penetrating the back of the head of the deceased and producing his death. The general grounds of the motion for new trial are without merit.
2. Special grounds 3 and 4 complain of excerpts of the charge on justifiable homicide. It is contended that there was no evidence to authorize the charge, and that it was confusing and prejudicial. Assuming that the evidence did not authorize this charge, it was in that event more favorable to the accused than he was entitled to have given. He was not harmed thereby, and this is not ground for reversal. Dill v State, 106 Ga. 683(4), 32 S.E. 660; Norton v State, 137 Ga. 842, 74 S.E. 759; Geer v. State, 184 Ga. 805(1), 193 S.E. 776; Jones v. State, 197 Ga. 604(4), 30 S.E.2d 192.
3. Special ground 7 excepts to the failure to charge the law of accident as embraced in the Code, § 26-404, it being contended that the accused did not intend to kill the deceased. Appropriate language dealing with similar facts is found in Russell v. State, 196 Ga. 275, 287, 26 S.E.2d 528, 535, where it is said: 'Under all the evidence and the defendant's statement, the killing occurred in connection with and as one of the It was there held that the court did not err in failing to charge the Code, § 26-404. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fields v. State
...it involve homicide by accident or involuntary manslaughter.' See also Russell v. State, 196 Ga. 275, 26 S.E.2d 528; Solesbee v. State, 204 Ga. 16(3), 48 S.E.2d 834. The statement made by the defendant included every act necessary to be proved in order to establish his guilt, and the trial ......
-
James v. State, 33516
...of the gun in the direction of Mose Long and his wife accidental, it being an intentional act on the defendant's part. See Solesbee v. State, 204 Ga. 16, 48 S.E.2d 834; Kersey v. State, 207 Ga. 326, 61 S.E.2d 2. Grounds 3, 4 and 5 complain that the court, in charging the theory of self defe......
-
Brown v. State
...would have acquitted the defendant instead of convicting her of the lesser offense, and the error was harmless. Solesbee v. State, 204 Ga. 16(2), 48 S.E.2d 834; Booker v. State, 183 Ga. 822, 190 S.E. 356; Dill v. State, 106 Ga. 683(4), 32 S.E. 660. It is sometimes a matter for argument as t......
-
Williams v. State
...in the manner stated by the accused would prevent the statement from constituting a confession--and, as to this, see Solesbee v. State, 204 Ga. 16, 48 S.E.2d 834, and if it be conceded that there was evidence of a confession--it was nevertheless not error to fail to charge on the law of con......