Lemming v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part · RuffinRuffin, Chief Judge
Like Judge Blackburn, I concur in Division 2 and I join in his dissent in Division 1. Thus, I am unable to agree with the majority with respect to Division 1.34 Indeed, I am sufficiently troubled by the reasoning and result that I am compelled to write separately.
As noted by Judge Blackburn, the language of the indictment charged Lemming with committing an assault “by placing [Finley] in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.” (Punctuation and emphasis omitted.) Thus, the State was required to prove that Finley was apprehensive of a violent injury. Whether the…
Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part · Blackburn.
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Happoldt v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1996
- Williams v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1993
- Carter v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2001
- Lunsford v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2003
- Hurt v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1981
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.