From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cowart v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia
Jun 30, 1976
237 Ga. 282 (Ga. 1976)

Opinion

30777.

ARGUED APRIL 12, 1976.

DECIDED JUNE 30, 1976. REHEARING DENIED JULY 14, 1976.

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia — 136 Ga. App. 528 ( 221 S.E.2d 649) (1975).

John W. Timmons, Jr., Jack H. Affleck, for appellant.

Harry N. Gordon, District Attorney, B. Thomas Cook, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.


Mike Cowart was convicted of criminal attempt to commit statutory rape, and his conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Cowart v. State, 136 Ga. App. 528 ( 221 S.E.2d 649) (1975). We granted certiorari to consider a burden-shifting charge by the trial judge on the appellant's affirmative defense of abandonment of the effort to commit the crime. Code Ann. § 26-1003 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249, 1275). The trial judge instructed the jury that this defense must be made to appear by a preponderance of the evidence.

In State v. Moore, 237 Ga. 269 (1976), this court held that it was not error to give a similar charge on the affirmative defense of coercion, but that such a burden-shifting charge would not be approved in cases tried after the final date of that decision.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except Gunter, Ingram, and Hill, JJ., who dissent.


ARGUED APRIL 12, 1976 — DECIDED JUNE 30, 1976 — REHEARING DENIED JULY 14, 1976.


I respectfully dissent. I would adopt the opinion of the Court of Appeals in Moore v. State, 137 Ga. App. 735 ( 224 S.E.2d 856) (1976).

I am authorized to state that Justice Ingram joins in this dissent.


Summaries of

Cowart v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia
Jun 30, 1976
237 Ga. 282 (Ga. 1976)
Case details for

Cowart v. State

Case Details

Full title:COWART v. THE STATE

Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Date published: Jun 30, 1976

Citations

237 Ga. 282 (Ga. 1976)
227 S.E.2d 248

Citing Cases

Perkins v. State

Even considering the charge as a whole, as we have done, this language was neither harmless nor invited, but…

Johnson v. State

In conformance with the Supreme Court's direction we hold that the charge given in this case was not error at…