Court Opinion

ID: 9607250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:56:47.134117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:34.451654
License: Public Domain

Jordan, Judge,
dissenting. I dissent from the conclusion reached by the majority since I cannot reconcile the facts of this case with the language used by the Supreme Court of Georgia in the Templeton and Belch cases, supra, and the result reached by the court in those cases. In both cases the Supreme Court reversed this court on the questions here being considered. In my opinion the facts in the Belch case come closer to demanding a verdict of suicide than do the facts in this case.
The facts recited in the majority opinion and replete throughout the record show an apparently normal, healthy, fun-loving youth without the slightest outward manifestation of worry or concern. Such facts shine brightly on the presumption against suicide and brilliantly illuminate it. They bolster and fortify it so as to clothe it with an almost impregnable armor. To keep it from the jury room under such circumstances it must be assaulted with facts and circumstances so overwhelmingly powerful that when viewed from every possible legal point would sustain no other finding save that of suicide. Horn v. Preston, 217 Ga. 165 (1) (121 SE2d 775). I do not think the facts of this case can meet that test.
Justice Mobley, speaking for the court in Belch, indicated that where “there were actual witnesses to the suicidal act” (emphasis supplied) the granting of a directed verdict or judgment n.o.v. might be justified in spite of the presumption against suicide. He properly prefaced this by saying “where there is no conflict in the evidence,” for certainly the fact that one person saw another shoot himself with a weapon would not ipso facto demand a verdict of suicide. Self-destruction in such cases can be the result of accident, such as a person carelessly examining the weapon to “see if it is loaded,” or where one is playing with a weapon in the genuine belief that it is harmless. The mere fact *467that such an occurrence has an eyewitness is not of itself determinative of the question of suicide. I do not think this case fits into this so called “niche” stated in the Belch case, as contended by the plaintiff in error.
But actually we do not have an eyewitness in this case. In the absence of proof to the contrary we must assume that it was dark at midnight. The young lady present at the time was only an “earwitness” for she stated “actually I don’t know what he did, I just heard it click,” and “whether he actually put his finger up there and pulled it, I don’t really know” and “I didn’t see anything, I just heard the click” and “I don’t remember seeing which hand it was . . . well, it was pretty dark.” Thus, the only person present could not testify precisely as to the cause or manner in which the gun was discharged. Such testimony leaves this question open to conjecture. This, coupled with the young lady’s testimony that just before the instant of firing (at the count of two) “I moved my head sideways, . . . I was trying to get my head away was the main thing,” would reasonably support the inference of accidental discharge resulting from her sudden movement due to the “temple to temple” position they were in at that instant. The reasonableness of such an inference must be viewed in the light of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, the “chance” meeting of the deceased and the young lady only an hour or so before, the deceased’s further plans for the weekend, his contentment with his job, and the complete lack of evidence pointing toward a worried or unhappy state of mind. If the deceased actually intended to end his life, such intention was outwardly manifested only a few minutes before the act. Can the human mind make such a calamitous decision in a matter of minutes completely contrary to all previous thought and action? I seriously doubt that it can. Human experience teaches us that normal suicide is the result of weeks or months or even years of brooding and reflection over problems apparently very serious to the troubled mind. ' Not one iota of evidence in this case points in that direction.
I am aware of the result reached in Thompson v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 84 Ga. App. 214 (66 SE2d 119), and sim*468ilar cases involving so-called “Russian roulette.” I agree with the result reached in those cases where the evidence clearly shows that the deceased voluntarily and intentionally and knowingly places a loaded weapon to his head and pulls the trigger. The evidence here is far from being that clear, and due to the lack of positive evidence on this point we cannot conclude as a matter of law that this deceased reached his death in this manner.
It would be hard to envision a situation where the presumption against suicide was more forcefully supported by the facts than in this case. Under such circumstances the presumption should only vanish when a jury in considering all the facts and circumstances determines that the preponderance of the evidence is against the theory of accident. Templeton, v. Kennesaw Life &c. Ins. Co., 216 Ga. 770, 773, supra. As stated in headnote 1 (5) of the majority opinion in the present case: “Where there is direct or circumstantial evidence, either or both on each side in any combination, showing or tending to show respectively that death was or was not produced by suicide, the presumption against suicide is not eliminated and a jury question is presented.”
As was said by the court in Templeton and repeated in Belch, “Courts should be careful, in the absence of a direct mandate of law, to take away from juries questions that time and experience have proven should be left exclusively for determination by the jury.”
Although the evidence in this case would authorize a finding of suicide, I think that the facts were sufficient to support the finding of the jury that the deceased did not commit suicide. In my opinion the court did not err in refusing to grant the defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
I am authorized to state that Nichols, P. J., concurs in this dissent.