Marable v. State
| Decision Date | 13 June 1892 |
| Citation | 15 S.E. 453,89 Ga. 425 |
| Parties | Marable v. State. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Homicide—Evidence as to Motive—Confessions —New Trial—Credibility of Witness.
1. Where the motive of an assassination was, in all probability, robbery, the fact that the de-ceased had money on his person shortly before he was killed is admissible in evidence against the accused without showing by direct evidence that the latter had seen the money, or knew the deceased had it, it appearing that he had, on the same day, been in company with the deceased, done some work for him, and might have had an opportunity of seeing his pocket book, and knowing that it contained money.
2. Confessions or criminating admissions made by the accused to a person having him in legal custody are not incompetent as evidence against him solely because the accused probably believed, in consequence of false representations made by his custodian to a crowd in his hearing, that the latter had come for him at the instance of his mother, and intended to befriend him by employing counsel in his behalf if he was innocent, the confessions or admissions being madesome hours afterwards, without solicitation, and being apparently free and voluntary, and intended only as an explanation by the accused of his reluctance to return to the state and county in which the offense was committed.
3. That a witness for the state, who testified at the trial that he had been paid for all his services in arresting the accused, and had no further interest in any reward offered for his apprehension and conviction, executed after the trial a power of attorney authorizing the person who had paid him to collect any reward to which he (the witness) was entitled, either severally or jointly with that person, is not cause for granting a new trial. The act of making such power of attorney is not necessarily inconsistent with the truth of the witness' statement in his testimony, but is easily reconcilable therewith.
4. Though the homicide may have been committed by striking the deceased with a hammer, and though the testimony as a whole might establish that theory, the admission of the accused that he struck him with a stick was competent evidence as being a part of his general admission on the subject. The admission might be partly true and partly false.
5. The evidence warranted the verdict, and there was no error in denying a new trial.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Walker county; John W. Maddox, Judge.
Roscoe Marable was convicted of murder, and he brings error. Affirmed.
The following is the substance of the official report:
Marable was indicted for the murder of Evett. The murder was alleged to have been committed with a certain blunt instrument, to the jurors unknown. The defendant was found guilty, and sentenced to be hung. His motion for a new trial was overruled, and to this lie excepts. In addition to the general grounds of the motion, that, the verdict was contrary to law, evidence, etc., it was alleged that the court erred in overruling a motion made by defendant's counsel, after all the evidence had been introduced and before argument was begun, to rule out all the testimony that deceased bad any money, counsel contending that there was no proof that the defendant knew deceased had any money, the theory of the prosecution being that he was killed for his money. There was no direct testimony that the defendant knew of the possession of money by the deceased. Upon this point it was shown that the defendant worked for some" time near where the deceased was engaged in running a little store. Deceased was killed Saturday night. On Saturday afternoon he and defendant were at a neighboring convict camp delivering pork. The wife of deceased testified that her husband had money about the house that day; that defendant was not in the house at any time when her husband was counting or showing his money; that her husband kept his money in the bureau drawer in the house in a large pocket book, and took the pocket book out of the drawer, and put it in his pocket that day, and carried it off with him to the convict camp, defendant going with him; that she supposed that there was $240 or $200 in the book when taken off; that after her husband was found that night his pockets were searched, and there was in them his watch, a little purse with $2.10 in it, his pocket knife, and a match case; that it was about two months before the large pocket book was found; and that there was nothing in it when she afterwards saw it, except some receipts.
On the subject of a confession W.J. King testified, in brief: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial