Legal Opinion

Lemming v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided March 11, 2005No. A04A1842Published

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

  1. Happoldt v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1996
  2. Williams v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1993
  3. Carter v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2001
  4. Lunsford v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2003
  5. Hurt v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1981

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API