Court Opinion

ID: 9587381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:21:29.465856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:53.992039
License: Public Domain

McMurray, Judge,
dissenting.
Defendants were indicted for the offense of aggravated assault upon one John Lunsford with a certain knife, a deadly weapon. They were likewise indicted for the offense of aggravated assault upon one *606Judd Grizzle with a certain knife, hands and fists, also described as "deadly weapons.” A joint trial was held, and the jury found them, as to each charge, guilty of simple battery. Each was to serve 12 months as to each conviction, the second sentence of 12 months to run consecutively to the first sentence.
We have no transcript of the evidence here, but on motion for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict which the trial court denied, findings of fact and conclusions of law were made. Therein the trial court stated defense counsel had requested that the court not charge the jury on "simple battery” and that the request was timely filed in the two cases. However, the court did charge as a lesser included offense the law as to simple battery. After verdict but prior to sentencing the defendants moved to review and reconcile the verdict contending it was repugnant, void, improper and contrary to the indicted crimes. Notwithstanding this motion the court entered a judgment and sentence on each defendant on each conviction. In its conclusions of law both of which are virtually the same, the trial court held that the crime of simple battery is a lesser included offense in an aggravated assault case in this instance, and the court did not commit error in giving a charge thereon and approving the verdict of the jury finding the defendants guilty of simple battery. Error is enumerated here to these conclusions.
The majority here hold that an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon does not require physical contact as is the case of a simple battery "hence the crime of simple battery is not necessarily included in the crime of aggravated assault.” Further, they hold the allegations of the indictments here did not contain all the essential averments of the crime of simple battery. As the result of this opinion the majority reverses.
I do not agree to the views expressed by my learned associates nor do I agree to the judgment of reversal.
First, the record here does not contain a transcript of the evidence and proceedings at the trial. Indeed, the notice of appeal does not disclose whether or not such transcript exists. Of course, defendants were charged with a felony but convicted of a misdemeanor. Without the *607transcript we have no way of knowing what evidence was presented in the case.
Second, an assault with a knife or with a knife, hands and fists necessarily discloses that there could have been considerable physical contact with the victim. Under the charge of simple battery (Code § 26-1304), "[a] person commits simple battery when he either (a) intentionally makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with the person of another or (b) intentionally causes physical harm to another.” Physical contact could very well have been present under the averments of the indictments. In Williams v. State, 127 Ga. App. 386, 389 (3) (193 SE2d 633), this court recognized that in an assault with a shoe-clad foot simple battery was a lesser offense of aggravated assault. However, in Davis v. State, 135 Ga. App. 584, 589 (218 SE2d 297), in which the defendant was charged with the offense of aggravated assault with a certain pistol, the evidence shows that the defendant struck the victim repeatedly about the head knocking him to the ground into an unconscious or semicomatose condition. The defendant denied any attack. This court there held that the lesser offense of simple battery was not in issue so as to require instructions since that offense was not "reasonably raised by the evidence,” citing two earlier Supreme Court cases both occurring before the new Criminal Code. Whether a weapon is a deadly weapon is a question properly for jury determination. See Quarles v. State, 130 Ga. App. 756, 757 (204 SE2d 467), the test being the manner and means of use and the wounds inflicted.
In my opinion, the evidence here could have shown physical contact by the use of a knife, or knife, hands and fists; and the jury could have determined the manner and means of use as well as the injuries inflicted, if any, other than touching. The jury would have been authorized to consider whether simple battery was a lesser included offense.
For all the foregoing reasons I respectfully dissent, as I would affirm the judgment.
I am authorized to state that Judge Shulman and Judge Banke join in this dissent.