Treadwell v. State, 48374
| Decision Date | 05 September 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 48374,No. 2,48374,2 |
| Citation | 129 Ga.App. 573,200 S.E.2d 323 |
| Parties | Bill TREADWELL et al. v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Nicholas F. Maniscalco, Atlanta, for appellants.
Edward E. McGarity, Dist. Atty., McDonough, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Treadwell and Davis were both indicted, tried and convicted of burglary and sentenced to serve three years. The defendants jointly appeal. Held:
1. The challenge to the array of petit jurors was made, but not until after the vior dire questions had been propounded with an opportunity to challenge for favor. But, even so, the fact that no one between the ages of 18 and 21 was on the jury panel does not, standing alone, prove that there were no jurors of that age in the jury box; nor does it show a deliberate exclusion of such persons from jury service. No evidence was offered to prove the jury list is not a fairly repesentative cross-section of the intelligent and upright citizens of the county. See Code Ann. § 59-106 (). A prima facie case of exclusion was not made. Simmons v. State, 226 Ga. 110(1b), 172 S.E.2d 680.
2. The court charged the definition of burglary to be an entry of a dwelling house without authority and with intent to commit a theft; and that a theft means the unlawful taking of another person's property without authority and with the intention of depriving the owner of said property. Absent a written request to charge more fully on intent, the charge as given was sufficient. Upright and intelligent jurors would have no difficulty in understanding the meaning of a simple word like 'intent,' and no detailed definition need be given.
3. Counsel for defendants in writing requested a charge on Code Ann. § 26-701, as to mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong. There was no evidence of insanity here, and while there was some evidence to show the defendants were intoxicated, this, in and of itself, would not require a charge on mental capacity. The court did not err in failing to give this charge.
4. Another written request involves the substance of Code Ann. § 26-705, as to the resulting overt act occurring from a misapprehension of fact. Here, the sole defense was that a Negro broke into the dwelling, and the defendants ran him off, and then entered the dwelling and placed personal property of the prosecutrix in a truck of one of the defendants 'in order to protect it.' This explanation is highly implausible and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Castell v. State
...person induced by promises of immunity from further punishment. There was no evidence to support either charge. Treadwell v. State, 129 Ga.App. 573(3), 200 S.E.2d 323 (1973). 11. The defendant alleges error in the trial court's insistence on oral testimony at the defendant's motion for new ......
-
Bowers v. State, 59455
...v. State, 90 Ga.App. 57, 60, 81 S.E.2d 839; Bridges v. State, 123 Ga.App. 157, 159(1), 179 S.E.2d 685. Compare Treadwell v. State, 129 Ga.App. 573, 574(4), 200 S.E.2d 323 and Nichols v. State, 133 Ga.App. 717, 718(3), 213 S.E.2d 20. However, the last two cases in nowise apply, inasmuch as t......
-
Kimbrell v. State, 56690
...for a crime "is highly implausible and utterly beyond belief" it is not error to refuse to charge upon that issue. Treadwell v. State, 129 Ga.App. 573, 574, 200 S.E.2d 323. However the cases are legion in the jurisprudence of this nation that "(t)he right of the jury to settle disputed issu......
-
Donaldson v. State
...in understanding the meaning of a simple word like ['possession'], and no detailed definition need be given." Treadwell v. State, 129 Ga.App. 573(2), 200 S.E.2d 323 (1973). This rule is particularly true where, as here, the cocaine and pistol were in appellant's actual possession (i.e., on ......