Murphy v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Price v. State

    289 Ga. 459 (Ga. 2011)   Cited 27 times
    Holding that trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on mistake of fact in burglary case given evidence that defendant entered the home through an unlocked door because he thought the home was for sale and additional evidence that the defendant saw "for sale" and "open house" signs that led him to believe that he was authorized to enter the house

    Because mistake of fact is an affirmative defense, even if it was not Price's sole defense, Murphy v. State, 280 Ga. 158, 159 (2) ( 625 SE2d 764) (2006) ("Mistake of fact is an affirmative defense"). [i]f [the] defense [was] raised by the evidence, including the defendants' own statements, the trial court [would have been required to] present the affirmative defense to the jury as part of the case in its charge, even absent a request.

  2. Chapman v. State

    280 Ga. 560 (Ga. 2006)   Cited 8 times
    Concealing the death of another is not a lesser offense of, felony murder predicated on aggravated assault

    After retrial, Chapman and the co-defendant were again found guilty of felony murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Murphy's conviction and sentence were affirmed in Murphy v. State, 280 Ga. 158 ( 625 SE2d 764) (2006). In this case, Chapman appeals from the judgment of conviction and life sentence entered on the jury's verdict finding him guilty of felony murder of his mother.

  3. State v. Henderson

    283 Ga. App. 111 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 9 times
    Evaluating and reversing trial court’s dismissal of a criminal charge and noting that even where a defendant should have filed a demurrer instead of a motion to dismiss, it "is the substance and function of a motion and not its nomenclature that controls"

    See Givens, supra. See Murphy v. State, 280 Ga. 158, 159 (2) ( 625 SE2d 764) (2006) (mistake of fact is an affirmative defense).Givens, supra; compare Schuman v. State, 264 Ga. 526 ( 448 SE2d 694) (1994) (while there is no authority for dismissal of indictment on basis of facts not appearing on face of indictment, State was precluded from challenging proceeding to which it consented).