Case Name: Watson v. The State
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1920-10-12
Citations: 150 Ga. 627
Docket Number: No. 2013
Parties: Watson v. The State.
Judges: All the Justices concur.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 150
Pages: 627–627

Head Matter:
Watson v. The State.
No. 2013.
October 12, 1920.
Indictment for murder. Before Judge Mathews. Bibb superior court. March 22, 1920.
The plaintiff in error shot and killed his wife, was convicted of murder, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He excepted to the refusal of a new trial. The evidence for the State made a case of murder. The accused introduced testimony, of his good character, and in his statement he set up that he found his wife and another man in bed together, that he was assailed by her with an ice-pick and by the man with an ax, and that he shot at the man and the shot killed the woman. The contentions in the motion for new trial were, in brief: (1) That-the court’s instructions to the jury “mixed up” the evidence of good character with the evidence on the whole case, and failed to state clearly that good character was a defense by itself, and if it was established to the satisfaction of the jury they should acquit him. (2) That the instruction, “Whenever one deliberately makes up his mind unlawfully to kill another and executes the intention, then that is a killing with express malice and is murder,” was error, because there was no evidence that the defendant made up his mind unlawfully to kill, and that the court here expressed an opinion of what was proved. (3) That the court’s instructions unduly restricted the right of the accused to kill either the woman or the man if he caught them in the act of adultery, and cut off his right to defend under such circumstances; and further, that a killing in heat of passion aroused by such discovery, without deliberation or malice, would be either excusable or no more than manslaughter, etc.
John R. Cooper, W. 0. Cooper Jr., and C. I). Erwin, for plaintiff in error.
R. A. Denny, attorney-general, Charles II. Garrett, solicitor-general, and Graham Wright, contra.

Opinion:
Gilbert, J.
The evidence, authorized the verdict. None of the assignments of error show cause for the grant of a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.