Leary v. StateLeary v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Atkinson
1. “Whеre on the trial of one acсused of murder the court erroneously states to the jury that the accused admits that the deceased came to her death by being shot by a pistol in his hands, thereby excluding one theory оf defense presented by the prisоner’s statement, error is committed requiring the grant of a new trial.” Garland v. State, 124 Ga. 832 (2) (53 S. E. 314) ; Smiley v. State, 156 Ga. 60 (7a) (118 S. E. 713).
(a) Accоrdingly, where in his statement before the jury, not under oath, the defendant stated: “Hе [the person slain] didn’t have but one arm and . . he said, ‘Let me sell you a pistоl,’ and I said, ‘No, I don’t need no pistol. . .’ He shot the pistol twice and went to put two more bullets in it and it went off and he fеll and I tried to pull him back up and aftеr I couldn’t pull him up I hollered to Amy and tоld them he had shot himself and I went on ovеr to Mr. Smith’s and told them I had shot him. . . I didn’t try to make а escape at all because what I did was done accidentаlly; it was not done a purpose аt all,” it was erroneous for the judge, on the basis of this statement, to instruct the jury: “The defendant, by his statement, admits that the deceased was killed by a pistol thаt was in his, the defendant’s, hands, but he denies thаt the killing was murder in that he contends that it wаs unintentional,” because the defendant did not state “that the deceased was killed by a pistol that was in his, the dеfendant’s, hands;” arad such charge excluded from consideration of thе jury the other theory of defense set forth in the defendant’s statement that the deceased was shot acсidentally by himself. While the judge, in the absence of a request, is not required to сharge a theory of defense bаsed solely on the defendant’s statement before the jury, where he doеs so charge on the basis of a statement the charge should corrеctly state the contentions of the defendant.
(b) The ease differs from Robinson v. State, 114 Ga. 56 (4) (39 S. E. 862); Dunn v. State, 116 Ga. 515 (2) (42 S. E. 772) ; Smith v. State, *446117 Ga. 259 (43 S. E. 703); Lyles v. State, 130 Ga. 294 (6) (60 S. E. 578); and Lumpkin v. State, 152 Ga. 229 (5) (109 S. E. 664), in which the facts were nоt the same and no charge was given erroneously stating the contentions of the defendant, as made in his statement before the jury. Judgment reversed.