a simple assault instruction was insufficient because the trial court did not define such legal terms as “attempt,” “intentionally,” “knowingly or recklessly,” and “imminent”
How later courts described this case
- a simple assault instruction was insufficient because the trial court did not define such legal terms as “attempt,” “intentionally,” “knowingly or recklessly,” and “imminent”
- trial court must define elements of an offense since legal terms are not necessarily understood by laymen without judicial guidance
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HESTER, Judge,
Concurring and Dissenting:
I concur with that portion of the majority’s Opinion which affirms the conviction of appellant for conspiracy.
I dissent to that portion of the majority Opinion which would reverse the conviction of appellant of robbery and simple assault. That portion of the court’s charge objected to by the majority adequately and accurately reflects the law and, when read as a whole, was sufficient to guide the jury properly in its deliberation.
I respectfully dissent.