37 S.E.2d 405 | Ga. | 1946
The instruction to the jury on the subject of flight was authorized by the evidence, and stated a correct principle of law.
This court on several occasions has approved instructions almost identical with that given in the present case on the subject of flight. See Lester v. State,
The record in the present case shows that the defendant in his statement made the following remarks: "She told the officers I tried to attack her, and I started to run. I got as far as this white frame on this wall and saw some bushes. When I started to run and go into the bushes I saw, I ran into a bank and fell."
W. M. Miller, a policeman who investigated the case, stated as follows with reference to the flight of defendant: "He [defendant] backed the car approximately twenty feet. I put the radio car in reverse and blocked him. . . When the defendant backed the car up and tried to get away, I was close to the fender. . . I could not say definitely what the defendant did after I blocked his automobile, because I started to the woman on the ground. . . At that time I heard my partner or someone running up Angier Avenue and run by me. At that time I noticed a racket in the underbrush or bushes to my right. I immediately jumped out of the car and had to come around the left side to get in the street. At that point I noticed the defendant running out of the bushes between the street light and myself, and my partner ran between me and him and caught him. That was the second time he tried to get away."
Under the evidence, the court was authorized to instruct the *390 jury on the subject of flight, and the charge was not erroneous for any reason assigned.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.