Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

89 Ga. 188

Willis v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided March 31, 1892

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1892-03-31

<p>1. Where, on a trial for murder, the prisoner’s counsel requested the court to give its charge to the j ury in writing, and after complying with the request, the court gave orally other and additional charges, it is cause for a new trial, although the additional charges were given upon a request of the jury- for further instruction.</p> <p>2. The accused being between the ages of ten and fourteen years, the court, after reading to the jury section 4294 of the code, is not, in the absence of a special request, bound to further charge that they should be satisfied he knew the distinction between right and wrong as to the particular transaction under investigation before they would be authorized to find him guilty; but it would be entirely proper and right to add this additional instruction, as explanatory of the true meaning of the section.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently October 1903

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-03-31

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 *188 Judgment reversed.

(2) The following, which was the only charge of the court to the jury on the subject of the defendant’s responsibility for his act if under 14 years of age, was not the law applicable to this part of the case, and it misled the jury and injured the defendant: “ If you should decide that he was not 14 years old, then you will determine whether he is of sufficient mental capacity to know good from evil. If he was not 14 years old and did not know good from evil—was not of sufficient intelligence to know right from wrong, then he could not commit a exime. In determining whether he kxxows good from evil, you can coxxsider all the evidexxce in this case for the State and the defendant. You may consider any evidence showing what he did, how he acted, what he said; and you may also examine his own statement made in this ease. In fact, the whole case in all its aspects is for you to examine and determine whether he knows good from evil. . If you should determine beyond a reasonable doubt that he did know good from evil, then he is bound by his acts and is subject to punishment for a violation of a criminal law.” ' J. A. Laing and J. W. Walters, by Harrison & Peeples, for plaintiff in error. W. A. Little, attorney-general, by J. H. Lumpkin, J. M. Griggs, solicitor-general, and Hoyl & Parks, by brief, contra.
/89/ga/188 · .json · Public domain