Lemon v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. Howell v. State

    350 S.E.2d 473 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 10 times
    In Howell v. State (180 Ga App 749, 350 SE2d 473), the Court of Appeals of Georgia held, in the context of a statute proscribing cruelty to children, that denial of necessary medical care to a child "does not constitute a denial of `sustenance.'"

    Defendants contend the trial court erred in refusing to charge their request that simple battery was a viable lesser included offense as to Counts 1 and 2. "Where the uncontradicted evidence shows completion of the greater offense [in this instance, cruelty to a child], the charge on the lesser offense is not required. Jordan v. State, 239 Ga. 526 (2) ( 238 S.E.2d 69). Marable v. State, 154 Ga. App. 115 (2) ( 267 S.E.2d 837)." Lemon v. State, 161 Ga. App. 692 (3) ( 289 S.E.2d 789). The evidence of record shows with convincing clarity the injuries inflicted upon defendants' child and the concomitant excessive physical pain from such injuries. Owens v. State, 173 Ga. App. 309 (2) ( 326 S.E.2d 509); Fain v. State, 165 Ga. App. 188 (1) ( 300 S.E.2d 197); Polk v. State, 142 Ga. App. 785, 786 ( 236 S.E.2d 926). This enumeration is without merit.

  2. Hayes v. State

    168 Ga. App. 710 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 6 times

    This matter lends itself to the discretion of the trial court and we find no abuse of discretion in this instance. Lemon v. State, 161 Ga. App. 692 (2) ( 289 S.E.2d 789). Judgment affirmed. McMurray, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

  3. Knight v. State

    303 S.E.2d 755 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983)

    There was no evidence which would have supported a conclusion that appellant merely attempted rape or that appellant assaulted the victim with intent to rape but did not complete the act. Under those circumstances, there was no error in refusing to charge the jury on criminal attempt or lesser included offenses. Lemon v.State, 161 Ga. App. 692 (3) ( 289 S.E.2d 789); Marable v. State, 154 Ga. App. 115 (2) ( 267 S.E.2d 837); Maddox v. State, 152 Ga. App. 384 (1) ( 262 S.E.2d 636). Judgment affirmed. McMurray, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

  4. Willis v. State

    291 S.E.2d 736 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 1 times

    The appellant did not deny that circumstances occurred as the store owner described, nor that he went into the store to get a change of clothes. He merely contended that he does not remember the incident at all because he was so drunk. His defense was thus his intoxicated state, which the jury was authorized beyond a reasonable doubt to conclude was voluntary. If the jury had believed appellant's intoxication was involuntary, he would not be guilty of any crime. There was no evidence authorizing a finding of criminal trespass in this case, since the appellant's testimony, if believed, would not render him guilty of a lesser offense. See Huffman v. State, 153 Ga. App. 203 (2) ( 265 S.E.2d 603). The evidence authorized a finding of burglary or nothing. See, in this connection, Lemon v. State, 161 Ga. App. 692 (3) ( 289 S.E.2d 789). Judgment affirmed. McMurray, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

  5. Brewer v. State

    219 Ga. App. 16 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 52 times

    5. Defendant next contends the trial court erred in failing to give his written request to charge on criminal trespass as a lesser offense included in the indicted offense of burglary. The State replies in its brief that no such instruction was necessary because, "`[w]here the uncontradicted evidence shows completion of the greater offense, the charge on the lesser offense is not required.' Lemon v. State, 161 Ga. App. 692, 289 S.E.2d 789 (1982)." "`In State v. Alvarado, 260 Ga. 563, 564 ( 397 S.E.2d 550), the Georgia Supreme Court expressly disapproved of that line of authority which had held that a lesser-included offense need not be charged unless the evidence showed that the defendant was guilty only of the lesser crime, and held that "(t)he correct rule is that a written request to charge a lesser included offense must always be given if there is any evidence that the defendant is guilty of the lesser offense.