Taylor v. State
| Citation | 142 S.E.2d 239,220 Ga. 801 |
| Decision Date | 08 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 22891,22891 |
| Parties | Bobby TAYLOR v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The general grounds of the motion for new trial are without merit since the evidence amply supported the verdict.
2. The special ground which complains of the admission in evidence of testimony as to prior threats made against the deceased by the defendant was expressly abandoned in this court, and hence requires no ruling.
3. The admission in evidence, without objection, of a statement made by the defendant shortly after the homicide was not error.
4. The principle of mutual combat was not involved and therefore was not required to be charged.
5. The portion of the charge dealing with reasonable fears was not erroneous.
6. The portion of the charge relating to both reasonable fears and voluntary manslaughter was not erroneous.
Sullivan, Herndon & Smith, Savannah, for plaintiff in error.
Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., Sol, Gen., Andrew J. Ryan, III, Savannah, Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Rubye G. Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for defendant in error.
The denial of a motion for new trial following a conviction of murder is here for review. Bobby Taylor was indicated by the grand jury of Chatham County for the murder of Walter Myers and upon trial in the superior court of that county was found guilty with a recommendation of mercy. His motion for new trial contains the general as well as five special grounds.
1. The general grounds are without merit since the verdict was amply supported by the evidence. There was testimony from which the jury was authorized to find that the defendant, without provocation or justification, drew a knife and fatally stabbed the deceased.
2. The first special ground, complaining of admission in evidence of testimony as to a threat made against the deceased by the defendant a considerable time prior to the homicide, was expressly abandoned in this court and therefore will not be considered.
3. The second special ground asserts that, for certain specified reasons, the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the defendant's purported confession. However, that statement was admitted without objection by the defendant, and for this reason alone this ground of the motion is without merit. Hill v. State, 214 Ga. 794(1), 107 S.E.2d 662.
4. Special ground 3 contends that the trial court should have charged on the principle of mutual combat. But the evidence shows no agreement or mutual intention of the deceased and the defendant to fight. Mutual combat was not involved so as to require a charge thereon. Porter v. State, 213 Ga. 325, 99 S.E.2d 110. See also, Mathis v. State, 196 Ga. 288, 26 S.E.2d 606. This ground was properly overruled.
5. Special ground 4 insists that a portion of the charge on the principle of reasonable fears was erroneous because that principle has no connection with the offense of voluntary manslaughter, which was charged simultaneously. The portion of the charge complained of was as follows: This portion was not given simultaneously with that as to voluntary manslaughter, as contended. It was given as a part of the charge on justifiable homicide. The language objected to was given immediately after the definition of justifiable homicide and immediately preceding further exposition of that defense. It is the verbatim language of Code § 26-1012, which relates to justifiable homicide. This ground of the motion for new trial is without merit.
6. Special ground 5 urges that the following portion of the charge was error: 'If the jury should believe that the defendant killed the person in the indictment and in the manner therein set forth, but that at the time of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abrams v. State
...statements made by the defendant. The admission in evidence of the statements without objection was not error. Taylor v. State, 220 Ga. 801(3), 142 S.E.2d 239. See also Hill v. State, 214 Ga. 794(1), 107 S.E.2d 662; Alford v. State, 137 Ga. 458(4), 73 S.E. 375. Appellant relies upon the dec......
-
Reese v. the State.
...giving of this charge. (b) Reese's request to charge 18, based in part upon language from an 1884 opinion cited in Taylor v. State, 220 Ga. 801(6), 142 S.E.2d 239 (1965), contrasted justification, voluntary manslaughter 2 and murder as follows: If the facts and circumstances surrounding an ......
-
Arnall v. State, 44771
...113 Ga.App. 185(4), 147 S.E.2d 469. The statement was admitted without objection, and this ground is without merit. Taylor v. State, 220 Ga. 801(3), 142 S.E.2d 239. 4. There is no merit to the contention that the court erred in failing to charge on circumstantial evidence. There was direct ......
-
O'Neal v. State, 42360
...47 Ga. 598, 609; Alford v. State, 137 Ga. 458, 459, 73 S.E. 375; Hill v. State, 214 Ga. 794, 795, 107 S.E.2d 662; Taylor v. State, 220 Ga. 801, 802, 142 S.E.2d 239. Judgment DEEN and QUILLIAN, JJ., concur. ...