Allen v. State, 20592
| Decision Date | 09 October 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 20592,20592 |
| Parties | A. D. ALLEN, Jr. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Wm. E. Spence, James Cecil Hughes, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Alfred A. Quillian, Sol. Gen., Winder, H. W. Davis, Jack S. Davidson, Jefferson, Hope D. Stark, Lawrenceville, Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Rubye G. Jackson, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
A. D. Allen, Jr., was jointly indicted with Charles Paul (Rockey) Rothschild for the murder of Charles Drake. The defentant Rothschild pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The defendant Allen pleaded not guilty, and upon his trial was convicted with a recommendation of mercy and sentenced to life imprisonment. To the judgment denying his motion for a new trial, containing the usual general grounds, and four special grounds complaining of the manner in which the jury was attended by the bailiffs in charge of them during the time they were kept together at night, he excepts.
While it is not insisted by the State that the defendant Allen shot and killed the deceased, it is insisted, and Rothschild so testified on the trial of Allen, that he and Allen entered into a conspiracy to rob the deceased; that Allen was to receive a certain percentage of whatever sum Rothschild obtained in the robbery; that Rothschild called Allen in Winder, Georgia, from Athens, Georgia, and Allen came to Athens to meet him in about forty-five minutes; that Allen instructed Rothschild to meet him that night at Tomlin's Drive-In in Winder; that he did so about 7:30 or 8 o'clock, when it was getting dark; that Rothschild was driving a car belonging to one Patterson, which was described as an old model, blue colored Plymouth, which he was unable to start after he arrived at Tomlin's Drive-In, and Rothschild asked a policeman to call Allen to come push him off, which Allen did; that the Patterson car was parked at a church, and Allen took Rothschild in Allen's car and drove by the home of the deceased, which was pointed out by Allen, and they agreed upon the point at which Allen was to pick Rothschild up after the robbery; that in the attempt by Rothschild to rob Drake, the latter was shot and killed that Allen picked Rothschild up at the place agreed upon, and Rothschild changed from a suit of olive colored coveralls into other clothes which were in Allen's car, and removed his cap and shoes and placed a silk stocking, which he had used as a mask, in his pocket, and Allen hid the shoes, cap, and stocking behind some bushes upon a bank beside the road; that, at the instance of Allen, the pistol with which Rothschild had shot Drake was thrown into a creek or branch; that they then went to the Patterson car, which Rothschild entered, and was told by Allen to follow him; that they got on some more roads and in a short time ran into a road blocked by a police car; that the police motioned Allen on through and then motioned Rothschild through with the Patterson car; that they went to an old field, where Allen left Rothschild with the statement that he would return later; that he later came back and told Rothschild that he would show him the way to Atlanta; that he, Rothschild, came on to Atlanta, and had not seen Allen since. Rothschild also testified that Held:
1. The second special ground of the motion for new trial complains that the bailiffs in charge of the jury went to bed in separate rooms from some of the jurors, thereby failing to remain with the jury at all times and thereby failing to remain awake at all times while the jury was in the care of these bailiffs, which fact was unknown to the defendant or his counsel until after the rendition of the verdict in said case. There is attached to the amended motion in support of this ground an affidavit by O. C. Sailors, one of the bailiffs in charge of the jury, in which he stated that he and J. B. Alexander had charge of the jury while they were at a named motel; that the jury, composed of fourteen men, which included two alternate jurors, occupied at least six separate rooms in said motel, and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Geiger v. State
...adduced at the trial. Relying upon Code § 38-121 and such cases as Sutton v. State, 104 Ga.App. 552, 122 S.E.2d 303 and Allen v. State, 215 Ga. 455(2), 111 S.E.2d 70 the appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to convict Dr. Our study of the record has led us to the view that the......
-
Castell v. State
...the accomplice's testimony and it must connect the defendant to the crime or lead to the inference that he is guilty. Allen v. State, 215 Ga. 455, 111 S.E.2d 70 (1959). "However, the corroborating evidence need not of itself be sufficient to warrant a conviction of the crime charged. [Cit.]......
-
Reaves v. State
...Smith v. State, 236 Ga. 12, 15-16, 222 S.E.2d 308 (1976); West v. State, 232 Ga. 861, 864, 209 S.E.2d 195 (1974); Allen v. State, 215 Ga. 455, 457, 111 S.E.2d 70 (1959); Price v. State, 208 Ga. 695, 69 S.E.2d 253 (1952). However, the corroborating evidence need not of itself be sufficient t......
-
Gunter v. State
...Smith v. State, 236 Ga. 12, 15-16, 222 S.E.2d 308 (1976); West v. State, 232 Ga. 861, 864, 209 S.E.2d 195 (1974); Allen v. State, 215 Ga. 455, 457, 111 S.E.2d 70 (1959); Price v. State, 208 Ga. 695, 69 S.E.2d 253 (1952). However, the corroborating evidence need not of itself be sufficient t......