Case Name: Glanton v. The State
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1920-07-15
Citations: 25 Ga. App. 491
Docket Number: 11212
Parties: Glanton v. The State.
Judges: Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 491–493

Head Matter:
11212.
Glanton v. The State.
Decided July 15, 1920.
Indictment for murder — conviction for manslaughter; from Carroll superior court — Judge Terrell. November 25, 1919.
The only exceptions relied on in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error relate to the failure to give to the jury certain instructions 'as to threats of the person killed. It is alleged that the court erred in not charging (without request) : “You -may consider any uncommunicated threats made by the deceased against the defendant, if i't is shown that any was made, for the purpose of showing who began the affray, and for the purpose of corroborating evidence of communicated threats, if any be shown, and to show the attitude of the deceased.” It is alleged that the court erred in refusing written requests to charge as follows: (1) “In determining whether the deceased, at the time of the killing, manifestly intended or endeavored, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony upon the person of the accused, you may take into consideration any uncommunicated threats made by the deceased against the accused, if 'any such threats have been shown.” (2) “The court charges you that whether the accused, at the time of the killing, acted under the fears of a reasonable man that a felony was about to be committed upon his person by the deceased, and that it was necessary for him to kill the deceased to prevent it, is a question to be determined by the jury; and in determining this question you m!ay take into consideration any threats that the deceased may have made against the life of the accused, if such threats had been communicated to the accused prior to the killing, and provided further that you should find that any such threats had been proven. And in determining this question you may further take into consideration the character of the deceased for violence, provided such character has been proven, and provided further that such character upon the part of the deceased was known to the accused prior to the killing.”

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
1. The charge of the court was full and fair, the evidence authorized the verdict, and for no reason assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.