Case ID: ga_127/html/0043-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Eish, O. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hunter et al. v. The State.
    Submitted November 19,
    Decided December 11, 1906.
    Accusation of riot. Before Judge Hammond. City court of Griffin. October 12, 1906.
    
      Robert T. Daniel and E. G. Armistead, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      Thomas E. Patterson, solicitor-general, contra.
   Eish, O. J.

To constitute the offense of riot there must be a common intent to commit the act constituting the alleged riotous conduct. Accordingly, it was error requiring the grant of a new trial for the court, upon the trial of two persons charged with this offense, to instruct the jury that if the defendants “united, with or without a common intent, in doing an unlawful act of violence, the acts and words of each one while the thing [was] in progress [became] the acts and words of the other one engaged therein.” Dixon v. State, 105 Ga. 787, and cit.; Tripp v. State, 109 Ga. 489; Coney v. State, 113 Ga. 1060.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.