Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Bearden v. State
Citations: 294 S.E.2d 667; 163 Ga. App. 434; 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2521Docket: 64261
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; September 10, 1982; Georgia; State Appellate Court
Defendant Bearden was indicted for cruelty to children but convicted of simple battery. He appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by not providing specific jury instructions. 1. Bearden contended that the court should have instructed the jury on justification for reasonable discipline under Code Ann. 26-901 (c). However, evidence showed severe injuries on the victim, his five-year-old stepchild, which did not support a claim of reasonable discipline. The court found no error in refusing this instruction. 2. Bearden’s second argument claimed that the court failed to instruct that if the evidence presented two theories—one of guilt and one of innocence—the jury should accept the theory consistent with innocence. The court determined that the evidence did not equally support both theories, and the jury was sufficiently instructed on the state’s burden of proof. 3. The third argument involved the court's refusal to instruct that circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except guilt to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that there was direct evidence in addition to circumstantial evidence, negating the necessity for this specific instruction. 4. Bearden also argued that the court should have charged the jury on misfortune or accident. He admitted to slapping the child, and the circumstances did not suggest a misfortune or accident based on the total evidence against him. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, with judges Banke and Birdsong concurring.