Opinion
59321.
ARGUED JANUARY 17, 1980.
DECIDED APRIL 7, 1980. REHEARING DENIED APRIL 17, 1980.
Simple battery. Jasper Superior Court. Before Judge Duke.
D. D. Veal, for appellant.
Joseph H. Briley, District Attorney, Sallie Rich Jocoy, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of simple battery. We affirm.
1. In his first enumeration of error, appellant contends that "[t]he Court erred in overruling [appellant's] motion for new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence." We find no merit in that contention. There is ample evidence in the record from which a rational trier of fact could have found each and every element of the crime of simple battery beyond a reasonable doubt. See Boyd v. State, 244 Ga. 130 (5) ( 259 S.E.2d 71) (1979).
2. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to give appellant's requested instruction on justification. We disagree.
Appellant requested the following instruction: "I charge you, Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, that if the defendant, H. C. Tucker, reasonably believed that force was necessary in order to terminate a trespass on real property lawfully in his possession, you must find the defendant's actions were justified, and return a verdict of not guilty." However, there is no evidence in the record tending to show that appellant "reasonably believed that force was necessary" to terminate Martin's alleged trespass on appellant's property. Indeed, appellant testified that "I slapped him because he ran my character down." (Emphasis supplied.) Such testimony directly contradicts appellant's present contention that he struck the prosecutor in order to terminate a trespass.
"This court will not consider an assignment of error on the failure to charge a specified principle of law where it is not made to appear that such charge, if given, would have been authorized under the evidence in the case." McGinty v. Interstate Land c. Co., 92 Ga. App. 770 (2) ( 90 S.E.2d 42) (1955). Appellant's second and third enumerations of error are therefore without merit. Judgment affirmed. McMurray, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.