The Supreme Court has remanded this case for reconsideration in light of Ward v. State,
Ward, supra, p. 37, held that the defendant "admitted that she shot the victim. This, of course, raises a presumption that she intended to kill him. [Cits.] A charge on involuntary manslaughter is not warranted where the evidence establishes without conflict that the killing was intentional rather than unintentional. [Cits.] The facts in the instant case provide no evidentiary basis for a charge on involuntary manslaughter.” (Emphasis supplied.)
In the instant case the defendant told the police the night of the incident and the court during the trial: "I didn’t want to hurt him.” He also testified: "I done it in self-defense.” "I thought my life was in danger so I stabbed him one time and I tried to tell him to get off me and he wouldn’t get off. He just kept choking so I started stabbing him again.” Thus, in Ward "the evidence established] without conflict that the killing was intentional,” whereas in the instant case there was evidence from which the jury could have found that the killing was not intentional.
In Jackson v. State,
It is apparent that the facts of the instant case are very similar to Jackson v. State,
Accordingly, where the testimony of the defendant with regard to his intent, or where the surrounding circumstances were sufficient to authorize a jury to find a lack of intent to kill, the court should charge on the lesser offense of involuntary manslaughter — the other requisites of Code Ann. § 26-1103 (a) or (b) being present. We affirm our original opinion. See Jackson v. State,
