Mize v. The State., 131 Ga. App. 538, 206 S.E.2d 530 (1974)
Linked as:
Summary
Judgment reversed. Bell, C. J., and Quillian, J., concur., Judgment reversed. Bell, C. J., and Quillian, J., concur.
Summary
Judgment reversed. Bell, C. J., and Quillian, J., concur., Judgment reversed. Bell, C. J., and Quillian, J., concur.
Text
Robinson, Buice, Harben & Strickland, Sam S. Harben, Jr., Spaulding, LaSonde & Associates, Benjamin W. Spaulding, for appellant.
The instant case in which appellant appeals from a conviction for simple battery developed from a melee in an eating establishment. While waiting in a customer line for service a young white female complained to her husband that one of five young black males who had come into the place had "pinched" her. A white male in the line pointed out the defendant as the offender. The accused denied the charge. A fight followed. The end result of the altercation at the restaurant was arrests and trials of the negroes. See Morehead v. State,
The instant trial began with appellant facing four misdemeanor charges. Three of these accused Mize of having committed simple battery upon the prosecutrix, her husband and the bystander. The fourth charge was his alleged use of abusive language. The last accusation was dismissed upon defendant's motion and the court granted a directed verdict of not guilty for the defendant on the charges involving the husband and bystander. Defendant was found guilty by the jury on the charge of having committed simple battery upon the wife in that he did "intentionally cause physical harm to" her.
In this appeal we are required to pass upon three enumerations of error.
1. The first assignment states "The court erred in refusing to grant defendant's motion for directed verdict in that the accusation charging the defendant with simple battery alleged the defendant caused physical harm to (prosecutrix) while the evidence, under the State's testimony showed a contact of an. insulting or provoking nature."
Appellant relies upon such decisions as Smith v. State, 113 Ga. App. 523 (149 SE2d 172); Allen v. State, 106 Ga. App. 761 (128 SE2d 549); Cornett v. State, 218 Ga. 405 (128 SE2d 317) and Hancock v. State,
3. Defendant's third enumeration of error contends the trial court erred in charging on justification. Since such charge was actually beneficial to the appellant, we would regard it as harmless error, even though it would have been appropriate as to the general melee. See Johnson v. State,
1974
Notes:
1. There was a split among the nine justices as to bias against beards with a majority sustaining the trial court's denial of such query.
Sponsored links
This document cites
- Supreme Court of Georgia - CORNETT v. THE STATE., 218 Ga. 405, 128 S.E.2.d 317 (1962)
- Georgia Court Of Appeals - Mitchell v. The State., 113 Ga. App. 523, 149 S.E.2d 172 (1966)
- Georgia Court Of Appeals - Allen v. The State., 106 Ga. App. 761, 128 S.E.2d 549 (1962)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
