State v. Allen
| Citation | 256 S.E.2d 381,243 Ga. 508 |
| Decision Date | 17 April 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 34460,34460 |
| Parties | The STATE v. ALLEN. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia 147 Ga.App. 701, 250 S.E.2d 5 (1978).
Harry N. Gordon, Dist. Atty., B. Thomas Cook, Jr., Chief Asst. Dist. Atty., Valerie E. Caproni, for appellant.
Jack H. Affleck, Athens, for appellee.
This is a certiorari to the Court of Appeals. Allen v. State, 147 Ga.App. 701, 250 S.E.2d 5 (1978). The only question is whether a requested charge on involuntary manslaughter under Code Ann. § 26-1103(b) was required. The recitation of facts in the Court of Appeals opinion appears not to require such charge, however, the principle of law relied upon is correct. Jackson v. State, 76 Ga. 473(2) (1886); Warnack v. State, 3 Ga.App. 590(2), 60 S.E. 288 (1907). Since the interpretation of the evidence is not a matter of gravity we dismiss the certiorari as improvidently granted.
Certiorari dismissed.
All the Justices concur, except HALL, J., who concurs in the judgment only.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crawford v. State
...certiorari as having been improvidently granted, this court commented that the charge was not required under the facts. State v. Allen, 243 Ga. 508, 256 S.E.2d 381 (1979). In Buckner v. State, 239 Ga. 838, 239 S.E.2d 22 (1977), the homicide was committed with a gun. This court held that it ......
-
Arnett v. State
...424 (1973), overruled on other grounds, State v. Stonaker, 236 Ga. 1, 222 S.E.2d 354 (failed to request charge), and State v. Allen, 243 Ga. 508, 256 S.E.2d 381 (1978), dismissing cert. in Allen v. State, 147 Ga.App. 701, 250 S.E.2d 5 4. In the second enumeration of error, Arnett claims tha......
-
Taylor v. Taylor, 34447
... ... 507] attempted to control the social lives and relationships of former wives in violation of the equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions, and that in attempting to define "cohabitation" the statute is so vague and unclear as to be violative of due process ... ...