Coleman v. State

Coleman v. the State

Coleman v. State, 67 S.E.2d 578 (Ga. 1951)

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided: November 14, 1951
Docket: No. 17637
Judges: Duckworth
Citations: 67 S.E.2d 578208 Ga. 5111951 Ga. LEXIS 413

Opinion — Duckworth

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

1. Since there was evideneé to the effect that the killing charged in the indictment was accidental, the court should have charged, without request, the law relating to misfortune or accident as stated in Code § 26-404. Failure to so charge was, as contended in special ground eight of the amended motion for new-trial, error requiring a reversal.

Jordan v. State, 154 Ga.

390 (114 S. E.

349); Batchelor v. State, 162 Ga.

7 ( 132 S. E. 624 );

Willingham v. State, 169 Ga.

142 ( 149 S. E. 887 );

Hill v. State, 169 Ga.

455 ( 150 S. E. 587 );

Patterson v. State, 181 Ga.

698 ( 184 S. E. 309 );

Etheridge v. State, 187 Ga.

30 ( 199 S. E. 185 );

Adkins v. State, 198 Ga.

720 ( 32 S. E. 2d, 768 ).

2. The other special grounds of the amended motion for new trial complain of other portions of the charge or the failure to charge, none of which are meritorious. Unless reviewed and overruled, the decisions in Comer & Co.

v. Allen, 72

Ga. 1, Hamilton v. State, 129 Ga.

747 ( 59 S. E. 803 ), Dotson v. State, 136 Ga.

243 ( 71 S. E. 164 ), Yeates v. Yeates, 162 Ga.

153 ( 132 S. E. 768 ), would require a ruling that the ground complaining of the statement in the charge on justifiable homicide, that, “as I understand from counsel” justifiable homicide is involved, is without merit. However, a new trial is ordered on another ground, and we intimate no opinion as to what our decision would be on a review of those decisions for the purpose of overruling them. Certainly such a statement can never have any beneficial place in a charge and ought never to be made.

3. The general grounds are not ruled upon, since on another trial the evidence may not be the same, and we would not wish any ruling of ours to prejudice the case on the sufficiency of the evidence.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Teasley v. State184 S.E.2d 179 (Ga. 1971)
Harris v. State244 S.E.2d 620 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978)
Whigham v. State205 S.E.2d 467 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974)
Harrison v. State226 S.E.2d 480 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)
Dupree v. State99 S.E.2d 81 (Ga. 1957)
State v. Postell510 P.2d 749 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973)

Most recent

Johnson v. State312 S.E.2d 184 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983) · Dissent
Harris v. State244 S.E.2d 620 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978)
Silvey v. State236 S.E.2d 869 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977)
Harrison v. State226 S.E.2d 480 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)
Davis v. State226 S.E.2d 101 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)
Whigham v. State205 S.E.2d 467 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 10

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Hamilton v. State, 59 S.E. 803 (Ga. 1907)	21
	Dotson v. State, 71 S.E. 164 (Ga. 1911)	21
	Willingham v. State, 149 S.E. 887 (Ga. 1929)	19
	Patterson v. State, 184 S.E. 309 (Ga. 1936)	18
	Hill v. State, 150 S.E. 587 (Ga. 1929)	7
	Adkins v. State, 32 S.E.2d 768 (Ga. 1945)	6
	Jordan v. State, 114 S.E. 349 (Ga. 1922)	5
	Yeates v. Yeates, 132 S.E. 768 (Ga. 1926)	5
	Etheridge v. State, 199 S.E. 185 (Ga. 1938)	3
	Batchelor v. State, 132 S.E. 624 (Ga. 1926)	1

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list