Case ID: ga-app_23/html/0541-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Bloodworth, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

10273.
    Smith v. The State.
    Decided April 12, 1919.
    Conviction of voluntary manslaughter; from Jasper superior court—Judge Park. December 10, 1918.
    Prom the 4th ground of the motion for a new trial it appears,' that there was testimony to the effect that when, in reply to a question of J. L. Burney, the defendant said that Shep Saffold, the person he was charged with having killed, was killed by his own pistol, Burney said, “That won’t do; I have got his. pistol here, and Shep’s pistol hadn’t been shot;” and the defendant said nothing then. This statement of Burney was objected to as his mere opinion on facts to be passed upon by the jury, and-counsel for the defendant moved to rule it out. The court held that it was admissible as a part of the conversation between Burney and the defendant. It is alleged that the court erred in refusing to exclude it.
   Bloodworth, J.

1. The court did not err in admitting evidence as complained of in the 4th ground of the motion for a new trial.

2. There was ample evidence to authorize the charge of the court on voluntary manslaughter. See Weldon v. State, 21 Ga App. 330 (1h) (94 S. E. 326), and cases cited.

3. Tne instructions on voluntary manslaughter, set out in the motion for a new trial, are not subject to the exceptions taken, when read in connection with the remainder of the charge of the court.

4. “In charging section 70 of the Penal Code, failure to explain to the jury the meaning of the word ‘felony/ used therein, is not 'cause for a new trial, in the absence of an appropriate and timely request so to do.” Pressley v. State, 132 Ga. 64 (3), 65 (63 S. E. 784); Pickens v. State, 132 Ga. 46 (63 S. E. 783) ; Jordan v. State, 16 Ga. App. 393, 400 (85 S. E. 455).

5. The requests to charge, so far as pertinent-and legal, were covered by the charge as given.

6. There was evidence to support the verdict; and the judgment is Affirmed.

Broyles P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

W. S. Florence, for plaintiff in error.

Doyle Campbell, solicitor-general, contra.