Bennett v. The State., 146 Ga. App. 407, 246 S.E.2d 425 (1978)
Linked as:
Text
Richard E. Allen, District Attorney, Stephen E. Curry, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.Surrett, Thompson, Bell, Choate & Walker, John C. Bell, Jr., for appellant.
The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault for shooting his sister-in-law. His sole defense was his alleged insanity at the time of the shooting.
1. The appellant made out a strong case for his lack of capacity to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the shooting. See Code Ann. 26-702. In contrast, the state produced very little evidence bearing on the issue. However, the state did produce testimony that at the time of his arrest the appellant was coherent and acting normally, that he indicated that he understood his Miranda rights, and that he was able to recall the details of the incident. These facts, in conjunction with the continued presumption of sanity which accompanies a criminal defendant throughout his trial, were sufficient to support the jury's verdict. See Durham v. State,
2. The trial judge did not err in refusing to charge on delusional compulsion (Code Ann. 26-703) since there was no evidence to indicate that the appellant was acting under any delusion. Teasley v. State,
1978
Sponsored links
This document cites
- Supreme Court of Georgia - POTTS v. THE STATE., 241 Ga. 67, 243 S.E.2.d 510 (1977)
- Supreme Court of Georgia - DURHAM v. THE STATE., 239 Ga. 697, 238 S.E.2.d 334 (1977)
- Supreme Court of Georgia - THE STATE v. AVERY., 237 Ga. 865, 230 S.E.2.d 301 (1976)
- Supreme Court of Georgia - TEASLEY v. THE STATE., 228 Ga. 107, 184 S.E.2.d 179 (1971)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
