Hilton v. State, 209 S.E.2d 606 (Ga. 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
Hilton v. State, 209 S.E.2d 606 (Ga. 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“before a charge will constitute reversible error, the charge in question must be viewed in regard to the charge as a whole.”
46 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Dukes v. State (ga, 2012-02-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Dukes v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Ga. · 2012 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
before a charge will constitute reversible error, the charge in question must be viewed in regard to the charge as a whole.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lawson v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
Hilton v. State, 233 Ga. 11, 12 (2) ( 209 SE2d 606 ) (1974).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Felts v. State
Ga. · 1979 · confidence medium
Nunnally v. State, 235 Ga. 693 (5) ( 221 SE2d 547 ) (1975); Proctor v. State, 235 Ga. 720, 726-727 ( 221 SE2d 556 ) (1975Hilton v. State, 233 Ga. 11, 12 ( 209 SE2d 606 ) (1974).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Futch v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1978 · confidence medium
"Before a charge will constitute reversible error, the charge in question must be viewed in regard to the charge as a whole.” Hilton v. State, 233 Ga. 11, 12 (2) ( 209 SE2d 606 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Patterson v. State
Ga. · 1977 · confidence medium
Nunnally v. State, 235 Ga. 693 (5) ( 221 SE2d 547 ) (1975); Proctor v. State, 235 Ga. 720, 726-727 ( 221 SE2d 556 ) (1975); Hilton v. State, 233 Ga. 11, 12 ( 209 SE2d 606 ) (1974).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Leverenz v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1976 · confidence medium
Hilton v. State, 233 Ga. 11, 12 ( 209 SE2d 606 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hudson v. State
Ga. · 1976 · confidence medium
When this instruction is viewed in the context of the total charge (Hilton v. State, 233 Ga. 11, 12 ( 209 SE2d 606 ) (1974); Spencer v. State, 231 Ga. 705, 707 ( 203 SE2d 856 ) (1974)), and in the light of the evidence presented at trial (Robinson v. State, 232 Ga. 123, 128 ( 205 SE2d 210 ) (1974) ), we find no error.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Proctor v. State
Ga. · 1975 · confidence medium
The jury charge of the trial judge must be viewed as a whole (see Hilton v. State, 233 Ga. 11, 12 ( 209 SE2d 606 ) (1974)), and, when this is done, it is clear that any possibly erroneous impression that may have been created by the language of Code Ann. § 26-601 was corrected by the trial judge’s succeeding charges on murder, voluntary manslaughter and self-defense.
discussed Cited "see" Morgan v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Hilton v. State, 233 Ga. 11 ( 209 SE2d 606 ) (1974).
examined Cited "see" Riley v. State (4×)
Ga. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hilton v. State, 233 Ga. 11 ( 209 SE2d 606 ) (1974).
discussed Cited "see" Dodd v. State (2×)
Ga. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hilton v. State, 233 Ga. 11 ( 209 SE2d 606 ) (1974).
discussed Cited "see" Woods v. State (2×)
Ga. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hilton v. State, 233 Ga. 11 (2) ( 209 SE2d 606 ).
Hilton
v.
the State
29096.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Oct 8, 1974.
209 S.E.2d 606
Jacques O. Partain, III, for appellant., Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, John W. Dunsmore, Jr., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Hall.
Cited by 23 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 92%
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Georgia (1)
Hall, Justice.

Defendant appeals from his conviction for murder by shooting and killing the victim with a pistol and from the denial of his motion for new trial. The appeal presents two enumerations of error.

1. Defendant contends his character was placed into evidence by the manner in which his photographs were tendered for admission without his first introducing evidence of his good character or reputation. The transcript shows that a police officer, testifying on the manner in which he conducted a pictorial lineup, stated that he had obtained the photographs from the department’s "identification section” and that witnesses of the shooting identified the defendant from one of the photographs as having been the person who fatally shot the victim. Defense counsel objected and moved for a mistrial which was overruled. We find no reversible error. The transcript contains no evidence that the police photographs showed to the witnesses contained any indication that the defendant had been guilty of any prior crimes. Further, there is no indication that the witnesses[*12] learned from the photographs that the defendant had any prior criminal record. The photographs were never shown to the jury, nor were they introduced into evidence. See Creamer v. State, 229 Ga. 704 (194 SE2d 73); Tanner v. State, 228 Ga. 829 (188 SE2d 512); Cooper v. State, 182 Ga. 42 (184 SE 716, 104 ALR 1309).

Submitted August 16, 1974 — Decided October 8, 1974. Jacques O. Partain, III, for appellant.

2. The other point here enumerates as error a sentence in the charge that "a person also commits the crime of murder where, in the commission of a felony he causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.” There was no evidence of an independent felony other than the homicide. The court fully instructed the jury on the definition of murder applicable in this case. Code Ann. § 26-1101 (a). Also in the charge immediately following that quoted above, the court properly limited the jury’s deliberation to murder committed with malice aforethought, either express or implied. Before a charge will constitute reversible error, the charge in question must be viewed in regard to the charge as a whole. Domingo v. State, 212 Ga. 342 (92 SE2d 520). In our opinion the charge, when viewed as a whole, shows no harmful error. Pippin v. State, 205 Ga. 316 (9) (53 SE2d 482); Gentry v. State, 129 Ga. App. 819 (3) (201 SE2d 679).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.