Salisbury v. State

Decision Date18 January 1966
Docket NumberNo. 23315,23315
Citation146 S.E.2d 776,221 Ga. 718
PartiesHenry Cook SALISBURY v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

George G. Finch, Atlanta, for appellant.

Lewis R. Slaton, Sol. Gen., J. Walter LeCraw, Asst. Sol. Gen., Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Rubye G. Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

CANDLER, Presiding Justice.

Henry Cook Salisbury was indicted for robbery in Fulton County. The indictment alleges that he did by use of an offensive weapon wrongfully, fraudulently and violently take from the person of M. J. Goddard $1,412.82, property of Colonial Stores, Inc. He was convicted of that offense and sentenced to serve a prison term of ten years. He moved for a new trial on the usual general grounds and amended his motion by adding other grounds. His amended motion was overruled and he timely appealed his case to this court for review. Held:

1. That the trial judge should have granted the defendant a new trial on the general grounds of his motion is one of the errors enumerated by him; however, this contention has been expressly abandoned both in oral argument and in his brief and for that reason will not be considered.

2. In his charge the judge, after relating the material allegations of the indictment, instructed the jury as follows: 'If the State has proved those material allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant on trial would be guilty and it would be your duty to so say by your verdict.' The accused enumerates as error, prejudicial and harmful to him, this portion of the charge. We think this part of the charge is subject to the criticism lodged against it. It amounted to an instruction that if the State's evidence proved the material allegations of the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant was guilty and it would be the duty of the jury to so find. In effect, it restricted the jury to a consideration of the State's evidence, and the fact that the judge later in his charge instructed the jury to consider the defendant's evidence and his unsworn statement in making a verdict did not have the effect of correcting the erroneous instruction previously given, nor did it remove the injury resulting therefrom. Having given the erroneous instruction, it could only be corrected by the judge expressly withdrawing it and instructing the jury to disregard it. Since this was not done, harmful error resulted therefrom. In this connection see Habersham v. State, 56 Ga. 61 and Giles v. State, 83 Ga. 367, 9 S.E. 783.

3. The defendant complains of and assigns error on the charge which the judge gave on the subject of alibi and proof thereof. This portion of the charge was requested in writing by the defendant and given in the language of such request. Hence, the defendant is in no position to attack or criticize it as being erroneous.

4. Another error which the defendant enumerates is that the court refused to allow two of his witnesses to testify concerning the result of a lie detector test they gave him and to which he voluntarily submitted. This presents a new evidence question for the courts of this State. It has been held with near unanimity in many other jurisdictions of this country, both State and Federal, that the results of lie detector tests are inadmissible. In those jurisdictions which have dealt with such evidence, the courts have refused to admit the results thereof whether they be offered by the defendant or by the prosecutor...

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 cases
  • Felker v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • March 15, 1984
    ...error. Cir.1969). However, that "is not to say that the jury should be encouraged in their 'lawlessness.' " Ibid. Salisbury v. State, 221 Ga. 718(2), 146 S.E.2d 776 (1966), relied upon by appellant, is inapposite. The court's charge there, in effect, restricted the jury to a consideration o......
  • Harper v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • June 2, 1982
    ...acceptance in the scientific community which recognizes it. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923); Salisbury v. State, 221 Ga. 718, 146 S.E.2d 776 (1966). An evaluation of whether the principle has gained acceptance will often be transmitted to the trial court by members of the ......
  • Reed v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 6, 1978
    ...Williams, supra; Brooke v. People, 139 Colo. 388, 339 P.2d 993 (1959); Kaminski v. State, 63 So.2d 339 (Fla. 1953); Salisbury v. State, 221 Ga. 718, 146 S.E.2d 776 (1966); State v. Linn, 93 Idaho 430, 462 P.2d 729 (1969); State v. Lowry, 163 Kan. 622, 185 P.2d 147 (1947); State v. Casale, 1......
  • Al-Amin v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • May 24, 2004
    ...the crimes. The jury was promptly given a lengthy instruction setting forth the correct principles of law. Compare Salisbury v. State, 221 Ga. 718(5), 146 S.E.2d 776 (1966) and Spann v. State, 126 Ga.App. 370(2), 190 S.E.2d 924 (1972) (the error was deemed harmful in the absence of any effo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT