Adams v. State

• Decision Date: 19 July 1930
• Docket Number: No. 7598.,7598.
• Citation: 171 Ga. 90,154 S.E. 700
• Parties: ADAMS. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

171 Ga. 90

154 S.E. 700

ADAMS.

v.STATE.

No. 7598.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

July 19, 1930.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 17, 1930.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

RUSSELL, C. J., dissenting.

Error from Superior Court, Columbia County; A. L Franklin, Judge.

Burley Adams was convicted for murder, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

See, also, 168 Ga. 530, 148 S. E. 386.

Burley Adams was indicted, tried, and convicted of the offense of murder. He moved for a new trial on the general grounds, and later amended by adding special grounds. The motion was overruled and the movant excepted. The case was formerly before this court. Adams v. State, 168 Ga. 530, 148 S. E. 386, where the statement of the case will be found, and the law of the case settled as it appeared at that time.

J. T. Olive, of Harlem, and J. B. & T. R. Burnside, of Thomson, for plaintiff in error.

George Hains, Sol. Gen., of Augusta, by Jno. M. Graham, of Atlanta, for the State.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

GILBERT, J.

1. The verdict Is supported by evidence.

2. In the first special ground of the motion for a new trial movant complains that the court refused to instruct the jury in the exact terms of a written request, duly tendered, on the subject of confessions. The written request was quite lengthy, containing movant's statement of the contentions of both the state and the accused, including a detail of what movant "contends" was the evidence on the subject of confessions, as well as the respective deductions therefrom. Held: No error. The request was faulty in being argumentative, including detailed "contentions, " and so not appropriate as an instruction. The court's instruction on the subject of confessions was unusually full, complete, and fair to the accused. It is not the duty of the judge in instructing the jury to review the respective arguments, contentions, and deductions from the evidence ofthe respective parties, more especially not so in the exact terms of a written request.

3. For the reasons next above stated, the second and third special grounds of the motion fail to show error.

4. No error is shown in the fourth and fifth special grounds of the motion, which complain of portions of the court's instructions on the law applicable to confessions.

5. Movant complains in one special ground that the court erred in refusing, though duly requested in writing, "to give in charge the rule of law with reference to circumstantial evidence." This ground of the motion is incomplete and fails to show error. Watts v. State, 120 Ga. 496, 48 S. E. 142. And see Adams v. State (former decision in this case), 168 Ga. 530(8), 540, 148 S. 10. 386.

6. Movant complains that the court erred in the following charge to the jury: "I know, gentlemen of the jury, that that is the kind of a trial that this man has had, and that you will render a verdict in the case according to the law and the evidence, along with the prisoner's statement in the case." Held: This charge, construed in connection with the entire charge on the subject, does not show error. It was not probable that the instruction would mislead the jury into the belief that the court was referring to a former trial, and it was not subject to the criticism that it amounted to an expression of opinion by the court that "the defendant was properly convicted on the former trial, " nor was it "an expression of opinion that a conviction would be proper in the trial which was then in progress."

7. Movant complains that the court erred in admitting the following evidence: "While sitting there, he said that if it had been old man Harrison, that is W. S. Harrison Sr., that he killed, he would be willing to be electrocuted." The only objection urged at the time to this evidence was that it is "irrelevant, and does...