Franklin v. The State Of Ga.
| Citation | 69 Ga. 36 |
| Parties | Franklin. vs. The State of Georgia. |
| Decision Date | 30 September 1882 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
Criminal Law. Evidence. Practice in Superior Court. Witness. Before Judge Simmons. Bibb Superior Court. October Term, 1881.
C. H. Franklin was indicted for the murder of Mit Bryant. On the trial, the evidence for the state showed, in brief, the following facts:
Franklin was at work on the place of one Freanian and digging a ditch in the garden. On Saturday, July 30th, 1881, he went to Macon. About eight o'clock at night, he went into a store on Pine street, and shortly Titer eleven o'clock he again went into the same store. He then purchased some tobacco and went up Pinestreet. As he left the store, he called to a negro who joined him, and they went off together. In about two or three minutes some one came to the store and reported that there was a man with his throat cut on Pine street. The clerk went to see about the matter, and found Bryant lying on the sidewalk with his throat cut He was down Pine street in an opposite direction from that taken by Franklin, and about fifty or fifty-five yards from the place where Franklin was last seen. According to the account of another witness, as he was passing along Pine street, about eleven o\'clock at night, he met Bryant in company with a white man and a negro about the place where the murder occurred. The white man wore side whiskers and a moustache. He had on old and muddy looking boots. He and the negro had Bryant down upon the sidewalk. Attracted by the noise, the witness asked what the matter was, to which the white man responded that a friend of his was drunk and he was trying to get him home, and asked the aid of the witness in doing so. The latter took hold of Bryant on one side and tried to assist him. The man searched Bryant, stated that he was a United States marshal and presented a badge. He also stated that Bryant had $500.00. Bryant was very drunk, and the witness said that they could do nothing with him without a hack, and advised that he be left where he was, and that he would be all right on the morrow. The witness thereupon went away leaving the white man and the negro with the drunken man. After some time, probably three-quarters of an hour, the witness returned the same way, found Bryant with his throat cut, and gave the alarm When found, Bryant was barefoot and had a boot with an umbrella under his head and another boot beside him. The witness who found Bryant had been drinking some, but stated that he was not drunk. He had seen the same white man who was with Bryant earlier In the evening. He thought it was the prisoner, but could not be positive as the man wore side whiskers and a moustache, while the prisoner had, at the time of trial, a full beard. De-fendant reached the place where he was staying about twelve o\'clock at night. He then had on shoes. The next morning he exhibited a knife which had stains upon it, which stains (in the language of a witness) " imitated blood." Defendant stated that on the previous night he had loaned his knife to a friend, and that when this friend returned it, it looked like he had cut a dog with it. The knife was in court and was identified. Defendant was arrested on Sunday and carried to where Bryant was. The latter was able to speak in a low tone, above a. whisper. While defendant\'s hands were tied, the police removed the shoes and socks he wore, and showed them to Bryant who identified them as his own. Defendant was about six or eight feet distant, and could have heard what Bryant said if he listened attentively, though the witness who detailed these facts could not state positively that he did hear. A few minutes later, when the police had finished the object of their visit and were leaving, defend ant stated that he bought the shoes at Milner. There was testimony to the effect that the shoes looked like Bryant\'s shoes and that the boots found near Bryant looked like the boots previously worn by defendant, and that defendant wore side whiskers at the time of the homicide. Bryant lingered for some time, and then died from the effects of the wound.
There was much conflicting testimony on both sides as to character, credibility of witnesses, etc., not necessary to detail here.
The defendant in his statement said that he had been on Pine street about eleven o'clock at night, and at the store where he was seen; that he went directly to the place where he was stopping, and knew nothing of the cutting; that he had bought the shoes and socks which were taken from his feet by the police in Milner; that when he was arrested he was tied, and accused of having committed the crime, with abusive language on the part of the police; that the shoes and socks were exhibited to Bryant, who thereupon shook his head as if indicating a negative, and whispered something that defendant did not understand.
The jury found the defendant guilty, and recommended that he be imprisoned for life. He moved for a new trial on the following grounds:
(1.), (2.), (3.) Because the verdict was contrary to law and evidence.
(4.) Because the court admitted in evidence the photograph of the wound of deceased.
(5.) Because the court admitted the following evidence of Wood, a witness for the state:
(6.) Because the court admitted in evidence the testimony of C. M. Wood, to the effect that while the defend ants hands were tied, his shoes and socks were pulled off, handed to Bryant, and that Bryant identified them.
(7.) Because the court erred in admitting the knife, socks, boots and shoes, offered in evidence by the state.
(8.) Because the court permitted the state to re-open the case and re-introduce two witnesses under the following circumstances: Both the state and the defendant had closed on Friday evening, November 18th, and one of the defendant's counsel had opened the case to the jury, when the court adjourned until the next morning. While defendant's counsel was making his argument next morning, and had about concluded the same, the solicitor offered said witnesses to prove material facts, counsel for defendant stating that all the witnesses for defendant had been discharged the evening previous. [The testimony of defendant's witnesses was solely in respect tothe character and credibility of the state\'s witnesses-and one of the witnesses recalled testified that the boots found near Bryant were the same as those worn by the white man whom the witness had seen with him.]
(9.) Because the court neglected to charge the jury in reference to the good character of the defendant.
(1o.) Substantially the same as (3.) and. (4.)
(11.) Because the court, when he admitted the evidence as to what Bryant said in presence of defendant, that the shoes and socks were his, remarked that he "admitted it not for the purpose of identifying them, but as a statement made in presence of the defendant, and then failed and neglected to charge the jury in reference thereto." [In regard to this ground, the court added the following note: "The remark was made to defendant's counsel in reply to defendant's motion to rule out the evidence.']
(12.) Because the court charged the jury as follows "That ii, circumstantial testimony proves certain facts, and these sustain by their consistency the supposition or hypothesis claimed by the state."
(13.) Because the court charged the jury: " Now, in coming to your conclusion in this matter, you may look to all the testimony for the state, and the testimony for the defendant, the defendant's statement, and say from that testimony whether he did the cutting or not. You may look to where he was on that night, when he was seen by the witnesses, in whose company he was, what he was doing, whether he was with Bryant that night or not, and if he was with him, what was done on that occasion. You may look to see whether Bryant had his throat cut upon that occasion or not, where he was before that night, what condition he was in, whether any part of his clothing had been taken from him, and if so, whether any part of that clothing was found upon the person of the prisoner, and if so, whether he has accounted for how he came in possession of it. Also look to his statement, and see whether he has explained that or not, whether he has explained his whereabouts on that night. Look to the knife that was found, whether it had blood upon it or not, and see whether he has accounted for that satisfactorily to the jury.
(14.) Because the court charged the jury: '"If a witness is proved to have general bad character, and from that character a witness would not believe him on his oath, that is an impeachment under the law; but he may be sustained by same proof of good character—that is for the jury to say whether he is sufficiently impeached of not; but if impeached by the first mode I have...
To continue reading
Request your trial