Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

223 Ga. 450

156 S.E.2d 68

Timmons v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided June 22, 1967

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1967-06-22

Relies on Bradford v. Mills · May Hosiery Mills v. Hold Stitch Fabric Machine Co. · McKibben v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1967-06-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently November 2004

14 state decisions

6019671970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Almand, Presiding Justice.

¶1 Under an indictment charging him with the unlawful killing of William Dozier by cutting, stabbing and wounding, the appellant Robert Timmons was found guilty of the offense of murder without a recommendation of mercy. The appeal seeks to set aside the verdict and sentence on three grounds: (1) Appellant was tried by eleven jurors, (2) The court failed to charge the law of mutual combat, and (3) Appellant, a prisoner in a state work camp at the time of his trial, was brought into court in prison uniform. Held:

¶2 1. We deal with grounds 1 and 3 together. The record discloses that after a jury of twelve had been selected one juror was excused and counsel for appellant agreed that the trial could proceed with eleven jurors. Further, the record discloses that appellant’s counsel agreed that appellant be permitted to wear his prison uniform in court during his trial. A person may waive or renounce what the law has established in his favor. Code § 102-106; Bradford v. Mills, 208 Ga. 198 (1) (66 SE2d 58); Weiss v. Hood, 200 Ga. 795 (2) (38 SE2d 559), cert. denied, 329 U. S. 759 (waiver of right to trial by 12 jurors); McKibben v. State, 187 Ga. 651 (4) (2 SE2d 101). Grounds 1 and 3 are without merit.

¶3 2. The court' did not err in failing to charge the law relating to mutual combat or mutual intention to fight. The court charged the law of voluntary manslaughter, but there was no *451 evidence of a mutual intention to fight. Therefore, the court was not required to charge on the theory of mutual combat.

Submitted June 12,1967 — Decided June 22, 1967— Rehearing denied July 6,1967. Casey Thigpen, for appellant. Walter C. McMillan, Jr., Solicitor General, Dan L. Lanier, Solicitor General, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Marion 0. Gordon, Assistant Attorney General, Mathew Robins, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

¶4 3. Though the appellant does not contend that his conviction was contrary to the evidence, we have reviewed the record and find that the verdict is fully supported by the evidence.

¶5 Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.
/223/ga/450 · .json · Public domain