Court Opinion

ID: 9574937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:09:42.92135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:27.631760
License: Public Domain

Gregory, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur with the result reached in the majority opinion, but I do not agree with all that is said in Division 2.1 believe the testimony of the defendant was sufficient to authorize a charge on accident or misfortune. However, it is noted that the defendant did not request a charge on this subject. Under these circumstances I prefer to base our opinion on the rationale of DeBerry v. State, 241 Ga. 204 (243 SE2d 864) (1978). The trial court in the case at hand charged on the necessity of proof of intent as it relates to murder and as to the underlying felony in felony-murder. A charge on accident would have done no more than to point out the requirement of intent. The jury necessarily found intent under these facts, and that finding precludes the factual existence of accident. In the absence of a request it was not reversible error to fail to charge the principle of accident.