Hamil v. State
Hamil v. State
Opinion of the Court
Defendant appeals his conviction of the offenses of homicide by vehicle in the first degree, leaving the scene of an accident, and failing to render aid. Held:
1. Defendant contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, in that no discovery motion was filed requesting a copy of defendant’s statement to law enforcement officers, and defense counsel waived an offered Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368 (84 SC 1774, 12
2. Defendant contends the trial court erred during the pre-evidentiary charge to the jury by giving an improper definition of crime. The charge of which defendant complains was a correct but incomplete charge of the provisions of OCGA § 16-2-1. The trial court immediately realized his charge was incomplete and corrected the charge. The jury could not have been misled or confused by the incorrect statement of the law because the trial court immediately corrected the charge. See Leonard v. State, 146 Ga. App. 439, 443 (5) (246 SE2d 450); Edwards v. State, 169 Ga. App. 958, 959 (315 SE2d 675). Moreover, the incomplete language was beneficial to defendant in that it narrowed the definition of a crime. Thus, error, if any, was harmless. See Barnes v. State, 145 Ga. App. 38, 39 (3) (243 SE2d 302).
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.