Patterson v. State

Decision Date21 December 1905
Citation124 Ga. 408,52 S.E. 534
PartiesPATTERSON. v. STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court
1. Criminal Law—Arguments of Counsel.

The remarks of counsel for the state were not of such a character as to require the granting of a mistrial or a rebuke from the judge.

2. Same—Instructions.

In the absence of a written request it is not error requiring a reversal for the judge to fail to instruct the jury upon the law of confessions.

3. Same—Insanity—Instructions.

When, in a criminal case, there is evidence introduced in behalf of the accused which raises an issue as to the mental capacity of the accused to commit the crime, it is not erroneous for the judge to instruct the jury as to the law applicable to such an issue; and, if the defense apparently set up by the evidence is not relied on, the attention of the judge must be called to this fact

4. Homicide—Evidence.

The evidence amply warranted the verdict, and there was no error requiring the granting of a new trial.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Heard County; R. W. Freeman, Judge.

Burrell Patterson was convicted of murder, and brings error. Affirmed.

Burrell Patterson was indicted and tried for the crime of murder. The evidence disclosed that on the day of the killing the accused quarreled with Stewart, the deceased, and that subsequently Mac Patterson, father of the accused, gave Burrell Patterson a pistol and directed him to kill Stewart. Immediately afterwards, Burrell Patterson walked across the courthouse yard to within 10 steps of Stewart, first threw a brickbat at him, then shot him, and after Stewart had fallen to the ground shot him again; either of the pistol wounds being such as would have resulted in death. The defense introduced by the accused was that he acted under duress, that he stood in fear of his father, that his father had threatened to kill him if he did not kill Stewart, and that he was acting under this fear when he shot Stewart There was testimony of several witnesses who heard Mac Patterson instruct the accused to kill Stewart, but there was no evidence that these instructions were accompanied by threats against the accused. There was evidence to the effect that the accused was subject to epileptic fits, but there was no evidence to show that he had suffered from this complaint within a period of some years from the date of the killing, and there was much evidence from acquaintances that the accused had never betrayed any symptoms of mental weakness. The jury found a verdict of guilty, without a recommendation to life imprisonment. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and to this judgment the accused excepted.

S. Holderness, D. B. Whitaker, and M. N. Mooty, for plaintiff in error.

J. R. Terrell, Sol. Gen., and Jno. C. Hart, Atty. Gen., for the State.

COBB, P. J. Error was assigned upon the failure of the court to declare a mistrial because the solicitor general in his argument used the following language: "The blood of this dead man calls upon you to punish this man and protect his family and relatives, and, unless you have the manhood to write it in your verdict, you should be exiled from the good county of Heard." We do not think this language called for a mistrial, or a rebuke from the judge. It introduced no fact, but was merely a forcible, and possibly an extravagant, method adopted by counsel of impressing upon the jury the enormity of the offense, and the solemnity of their duty in relation thereto. In the case of Taylor v. State, 121 Ga. 354, 49 S. E. 306, Mr. Justice Evans said: "It is quite natural, and by no means unusual, for an advocate, in discussing the facts of a case before a jury, to indulge to some extent in imagery and illustration. Sometimes a simile may be inapt, or the metaphor mixed, or the expression may be hyperbolical. What the law forbids is the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Flynt v. State, 58746
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • March 4, 1980
    ...made here appear innocuous in comparison with remarks held to be within permissible bounds in cases such as Patterson v. State, 124 Ga. 408, 409, 52 S.E. 534 (1905); Brand v. Wofford, 230 Ga. 750, 754(9), 199 S.E.2d 231 (1973), and Jackson v. State, 219 Ga. 819, 821, 136 S.E.2d 375 (1964). ......
  • Conner v. State, 39325
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • May 24, 1983
    ...attempt to impress upon the jury "the enormity of the offense and the solemnity of their duty in relation thereto." Patterson v. State, 124 Ga. 408, 409, 52 S.E. 534 (1905). However, counsel should not "go outside the facts appearing in the case and lug in extraneous matters as if they were......
  • Quaid v. State
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • July 2, 1974
    ...mistrials or rebuke. It is the introduction of facts not in evidence that requires the application of such remedies.' Patterson v. State, 124 Ga. 408, 409, 52 S.E. 534, 535; Powell v. State, 179 Ga. 401, 412(4), 176 S.E. 29. Jurors are not misled by hyperbolic patois frequently used by tria......
  • Vaughn v. State, 46957
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • April 10, 1972
    ...into a case, by law of argument, of facts not in the record, and calculated to prejudice the accused.' In Patterson v. State, 124 Ga. 408, 409, 52 S.E. 534, 535, this court said: 'Flights of oratory and false logic do not call for mistrials or rebuke. It is the introduction of facts not in ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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