York v. State, 25707

Citation226 Ga. 281,174 S.E.2d 418
Decision Date09 April 1970
Docket NumberNo. 25707,25707
PartiesWillard YORK v. The STATE.
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

Robert B. Thompson, Gainesville, for appellant.

Jeff C. Wayne, Dist. Atty., Gainesville, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

NICHOLS, Justice.

The present appeal was filed after Willard York was convicted of the murder of Harold Edwin Trotter and his motion for new trial, based on the usual general grounds only, overruled. The sole enumeration of error complains of the judgment overruling the motion for new trial.

There was evidence of two eyewitnesses that the defendant fired the fatal shot, that at the time the shot was fired the victim was sitting in the passenger's seat of a pick-up truck and the defendant standing outside the door of the truck, that some words had passed previously between the defendant and the victim but that the victim and one of the witnesses were leaving (the witness being in the process of starting the engine of the truck) when the defendant raised the pistol and threatened the victim, lowered the pistol and then raised it again and fired, the bullet striking the victim in the forehead.

While the defendant in his unsworn statement told of the victim and one of the witnesses physically striking and kicking him just prior to the shooting as well as of threats made by the victim, the State presented evidence that no one struck, kicked or otherwise touched the defendant in any manner. 'Provocation by threats will in no case be sufficient to free the person killing from the crime of murder, or reduce the homicide from murder to manslaughter, when the killing is done solely for the purpose of resenting the provocation thus given, Cumming v. State, 99 Ga. 662, 27 S.E. 177; Green v. State, 195 Ga. 759, 25 S.E.2d 502; but, where the killing is claimed to have been done on account of a reasonable fear in the mind of the slayer, threats accompanied by menaces, though the latter do not amount to an actual assault, may in some instances be sufficient to arouse the fears of a reasonable man that his life is in danger, or that a felony is about to be perpetrated upon him. In all such cases the motive with which the slayer acted is for determination by the jury; and if it be claimed that the homicide was committed, not in a spirit of revenge, but under the fears of a reasonable man, it is for the jury to decide whether or not the circumstances were sufficient to justify...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Milton v. State, 35477
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • January 4, 1980
    ...Warrick v. State, 125 Ga. 133, 138, 53 S.E. 1027 (1906); Jarrard v. State, 206 Ga. 112, 114, 55 S.E.2d 706 (1949); York v. State, 226 Ga. 281, 174 S.E.2d 418 (1970). The reason for the rule favoring admissibility of such evidence where the reasonable belief of the accused that he is being a......
  • McDonald v. State, 73204
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • March 20, 1987
    ...not the court's, to determine if, considering all of the circumstances, a reasonable fear was justified, as claimed. York v. State, 226 Ga. 281, 174 S.E.2d 418 (1970). See also the clear and well-stated instruction of the Supreme Court in this regard in Milton v. State, 245 Ga. 20, 25, 262 ......
  • Jordon v. State, 28954
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • September 17, 1974
    ...defense or manslaughter. Under the evidence in the case it was for the jury to determine whether the homicide was murder. York v. State, 226 Ga. 281, 174 S.E.2d 418. It was not error to charge on murder or to fail to direct a verdict of acquittal. 9. Enumerated error 12 contends that it was......
  • Moore v. State, 26964
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • February 11, 1972
    ...169 Ga. 142, 149 S.E. 887; Warrick v. State, 125 Ga. 133, 53 S.E. 1027.' Jarrard v. State, 206 Ga. 112(6a), 55 S.E.2d 706.' York v. State, 226 Ga. 281, 174 S.E.2d 418. The events occurring during the encounter, which resulted in the death, were presented by the defendant to the jury in an u......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT