Moore v. State

I respectfully dissent because, contrary to the ruling in Division 1, the court’s charge as to the authority responsible for the defendant’s destiny under the possible verdicts did not constitute reversible error in this case. Appellant complains that the portion of the court’s charge in this respect, which is quoted in the majority opinion, is an incorrect and incomplete statement of the law and is ambiguous and misleading.

Defendant had requested a charge on OCGA § 17-7-131 (b) (3) (A), which states the prescribed disposition for persons found not guilty by reason of insanity. He did not…