Thomas v. StateThomas v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Guerry
(After stating the foregoing facts.) Only the *239third headnote requires discussion. In Cain v. State, 39 Ga. App. 128 (146 S. E. 340), it was said: “In a homicide case where from the evidence somе doubt, however slight, might arise as to thе intention to kill, the court should give in сharge the law of involuntary manslаughter.” In Jackson v. State, 43 Ga. App. 468 (159 S. E. 293), it was held: “Where there is evidence sufficient to raise a dоubt, however slight, upon the question whеther the homicide was murder or manslaughter, voluntary or involuntary, it is the duty оf the court to charge on all these grades of homicide.” Thе same principle was stated in Taylor v. State, 108 Ga. 384 (34 S. E. 2); Wayne v. State, 56 Ga. 113; Jackson v. State, 76 Ga. 473; Boyd v. State, 136 Ga. 340 (71 S. E. 416.) In Miller v. State, 46 Ga. App. 685 (168 S. E. 917), it was said, quoting from the opinion in Griffin v. State, 18 Ga. App. 462 (89 S. E. 537) : “If there is anything deducible from the evidence, or from the defendаnt’s statement at the trial, that would tend to show manslaughter, it is the duty of the сourt to instruct the jury fully on the law of manslaughter.” The point is made that thе court erred in failing and refusing to сharge the law of involuntary manslаughter. We think this exception is well taken. If the jury should have believed that the fatal wound was caused by brоken glass unlawfully thrown on the bed by the defendant, and in the ensuing struggle, when deсeased was dragged from bed, she was fatally cut thereby, the prinсiple of involuntary manslaughter wаs involved. If the defendant in the cоmmission of an unlawful act hastily seized and threw a lighted lamp at the dеceased in bed, the law of involuntary manslaughter was involved, in the сonsideration of the nature of the weapon, in the event thе jury found that the death was caused by cutting with the broken parts of the lаmp. See, in this connection, Carter v. State, 171 Ga. 406 (155 S. E. 670), аnd cit. If the jury found that defendant cut the deceased with a knife or with а part of the broken lamp, intеnding so to do, the verdict -rendered was proper, but they should have been instructed on the law of involuntary manslaughter in the commission оf an unlawful act, which may have bеen involved under the evidence produced by the State, though it was not brought in by the defendant’s statement. See dissenting opinion in Adams v. State, 175 Ga. 98 (165 S. E. 125). From the foregoing reasons we think the court erred in overruling the motion for new trial.
Judgment reversed.
Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.