# Head v. State

> Supreme Court of Georgia · October 17, 1984 · 253 Ga. 429

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9578630

## Case

- **Full name:** Head v. the State
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Georgia
- **Decided:** October 17, 1984
- **Citations:** 253 Ga. 429; 322 S.E.2d 228; 1984 Ga. LEXIS 971
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hill
- **Judges:** Weltner, Marshall, Smith, Bell, Divisions, Hill, Clarke, Gregory
- **Cited by:** 104 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by Ross v. State, 279 Ga. 365 (2005).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 1
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9578630

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that introduction of prior felony evidence had “nothing to do with any element of [the other charges], except the forbidden (albeit perhaps the most illuminating) realm of character and propensity for violent crimes”
- finding that “[tjhere were no limitations imposed by the trial court as to the use to which the jury properly might put the evidence of prior convictions”
- stating in dicta that a curative instruction would be sufficient to avoid harm from admission of prior conviction

## Opinion text

Hill, Chief Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur in the opinion of the court, except paragraph (d) of Division 3. Although paragraph (d) is procedural, my disagreement with it is substantive.
In my view a person who defends himself or herself against an aggressor’s attack and who, without malice or intent, causes the aggressor’s death in self-defense, should not nevertheless be guilty of felony murder on the basis that such person is guilty of possession (however momentary) of a firearm by a convicted felon. That is to say, in my view, a person should not be denied the right of self-defense because such person is a convicted felon.
As this substantive issue is not before us at this time, I concur in the judgment.
I am authorized to state that Justice Clarke and Justice Smith, join in this special concurrence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9578630. Public record. Not legal advice.