Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1905–1939 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hill v. Stategreen2 sentences1936See also Hill v. State, 64 Ga. 453 (2), where this language appears: “The idea of prevention or defense against an impending or progressing wrong must enter into all cases of justifiable homicide.” Before concluding this opinion, we desire to state that it appears from the record that the court charged fully, fairly, and as favorably to the accused as she had any right to expect, upon her defense, presented by her statement alone, based upon the improper relations of the deceased and the defendant’s husband. 1932As has frequently been stated and as reiterated: “But in such cases, whether relating to wife or daughter, the idea of prevention or defense against an im pending or progressing wrong must be involved, in order to render the homicide justifiable.” Gossett v. State, supra. “To deliberately kill in revenge for a past injury, however heinous, after reason has had time to resume its sway, can not be justifiable.” Hill v. State, 64 Ga. 453 (2); Gossett v. State, supra. In Wilkerson v. State, supra, the court said: “The simple truth is, that while the law may justify a homicide committed for the pur | 1 | 3 |
Gossett v. Stategreen2 sentences1939I am not unmindful of the fact that these opinions go further than that laid down in the general rule stated in the Mays case, supra, and in Gossett v. State, 123 Ga. 431, 434 ( 51 S. E. 394 ), where it was said: “But in such cases, whether-relating to wife *208 or daughter, the idea of prevention or defense against ah impending or progressing wrong must be involved, in order to render the homicide justifiable.” See Hill v. State, supra. The rule just stated from the Gossett case is undoubtedly the correct principle in respect to such cases. 1 think, however, the use of the word, “immediately, 1939I am not unmindful of the fact that these opinions go further than that laid down in the general rule stated in the Mays case, supra, and in Gossett v. State, 123 Ga. 431, 434 ( 51 S. E. 394 ), where it was said: “But in such cases, whether-relating to wife *208 or daughter, the idea of prevention or defense against ah impending or progressing wrong must be involved, in order to render the homicide justifiable.” See Hill v. State, supra. The rule just stated from the Gossett case is undoubtedly the correct principle in respect to such cases. 1 think, however, the use of the word, “immediately, | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mize v. State
green
2 sentences1911Mize v. State, 135 Ga. 291 ( 69 S. E. 173 ). 1911Mize v. State, 135 Ga. 291 ( 69 S. E. 173 ). | 1 | 1911–1911 |
Drysdale v. State
green
1 sentence1905“A husband may attáck for intimacy with his wife in his presence, raising a well-founded belief that the criminal act is just over or about to begin.” Drysdale v. State, 83 Ga. 744 ; Wilkerson v. State, supra. But the law will not justify deliberate revenge. | 1 | 1905–1905 |