Court Opinion

ID: 9610668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:44:58.008924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:03.307204
License: Public Domain

Ingram, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment because I do not equate this accident charge with the alibi charge which I thought was erroneous in Patterson v. State, 233 Ga. 724. Under the present charge, the defendant is not required to relieve the state from proving "beyond a reasonable doubt . . . every fact necessary to constitute the crime.” In Re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 364. The state still has the burden of showing the homicide was intentionally done by the defendant as charged in the indictment. When this is done, the mens rea is established and this is sufficient for conviction in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
What I interpret the court’s charge to say, in so many words, is this: the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt every fact essential to a conviction. If the state’s evidence shows accident, the defendant must receive the benefit of that evidence. However, if the defendant has any other evidence bearing on accident the defendant has a duty to come forward with it. I believe this strikes a minimally acceptable balance under constitutional requirements in the context of an entire *925charge which places the burden of proof of the defendant’s guilt upon the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
I am authorized to state that Justices Jordan and Hall concur in this opinion.