holding that officer who was shot in the chest with birdshot and whose wounds were therefore superficial “suffered from his wounds [but] was not seriously injured in the statutory sense”
How later courts described this case
- holding that officer who was shot in the chest with birdshot and whose wounds were therefore superficial “suffered from his wounds [but] was not seriously injured in the statutory sense”
- holding trial court should have given lesser-included offense instruction where a reasonable juror could conclude arrestee shot police officer not to kill him but rather only to injure him and thereby effect an escape
- holding that while a gunshot victim “suffered from his wounds[,] he was not seriously injured in the statutory sense”
- finding no serious physical injury where an officer was struck in the chest with birdshot, leaving “superficial” wounds
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
REED, C. J.,
concurs in the result being of the opinion that the errors other than the failure to give Luttrell an instruction on second degree assault were sufficient to warrant reversal as to both appellants.
STEPHENSON and STERNBERG, JJ., dissent.