# Brown v. State

> Court of Appeals of Georgia · May 9, 1977 · 142 Ga. App. 247

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1244442

## Case

- **Full name:** Brown v. the State
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Georgia
- **Decided:** May 9, 1977
- **Citations:** 142 Ga. App. 247; 235 S.E.2d 671; 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1562
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion by Bell
- **Judges:** Bell, McMurray, Smith
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1244442

## Opinion text

Bell, Chief Judge.
Defendant was tried for murder but was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced.
Held:
1. Charging the jury on the contentions of the
*248
defendant is not a burden shifting charge under our decision in
Moran v. State,
139 Ga. App. 274 ( 228 SE2d 216 ). The holdings on this issue found in
Henderson v. State,
134 Ga. App. 898, 900 ( 216 SE2d 696 ) and
Graham v. State,
135 Ga. App. 825 ( 219 SE2d 477 ), relied on by defendant, were specifically overruled by
Moran v. State,
supra.
Submitted April 5, 1977
Decided May 9, 1977.
Fuller & Schiller, Kenneth C. Fuller,
for appellant.
F. Larry Salmon, District Attorney, Robert D. Englehart, Assistant District Attorney,
for appellee.
2. The court concluded its charge with a recharge on the law as to voluntary manslaughter and justifiable homicide. A mere repetition of a principle of law, while unnecessary, will not work a reversal unless it appears from the charge as a whole that there was such undue emphasis as to result in an unfair statement of the law in relation to the defendant’s rights.
Baker v. State,
88 Ga. App. 894, 895 ( 78 SE2d 357 ). In the instant case, the reiteration was as to the lesser included offense of the crime charged in the indictment and as to the defendant’s sole defense — both favorable to the defendant. When the charge is read as a whole, we cannot say that it confused or misled the jury or in any manner resulted in an unfair statement of the law as it relates to defendant.
Judgment affirmed.
McMurray and Smith, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1244442. Public record. Not legal advice.