Anderson v. State, 16981
| Decision Date | 15 February 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 16981,16981 |
| Citation | 57 S.E.2d 563,206 Ga. 527 |
| Parties | ANDERSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
George W. Westmoreland, Jefferson, for plaintiff in error.
Hope D. Stark, Sol. Gen., Lawrenceville, Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., J. R. Parham, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Myrtle Gee Anderson, mother of a two-year-old child, was indicted for murder of her child, in that it died of malnutrition which was the result of criminal negligence on the part of the mother.
After a jury trial had resulted in a verdict of guilty with a recommendation for mercy, a motion for new trial was made on the general grounds, which motion was later amended to include two special grounds: (1) that the court erred in allowing the State to place in evidence, over objection of counsel, the character of the accused; and (2) that the court erred in allowing the State to place in evidence, over objection, a photograph of the body of the deceased child taken after its death and 11 days after its admission to the hospital to be treated for malnutrition.
The evidence in special ground 1 was that the accused remained out late at night with various men, did not do any work of any kind, entertained various men at her house, operated a disorderly house, and returned home many times late at night, after being out with various men, in various stages of undress; all of which the State alleges was necessary to show a motive that the accused cared nothing for her child, and wilfully and criminally neglected it, which resulted in its death from malnutrition.
The motion for new trial as amended was overruled, and the exceptions here are to that judgment.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. Where evidence is admissible to show motive and to connect the accused with the crime charged, the mere fact that it may tend incidentally to put the character of the accused in issue would not render it inadmissible. Wilson v. State, 150 Ga. 285(2), 103 S.E. 682; Cooper v. State, 182 Ga. 42, 51, 184 S.E. 716, 104 A.L.R. 1309; Williams v. State, 152 Ga. 498, 110 S.E. 286; Frank v. State, 141 Ga. 243, 80 S.E. 1016; Hill v. State, 148 Ga. 521, 97 S.E. 442. But it is error to allow, over objection of the defendant, prejudicial and irrelevant matter to go before the jury in a trial which tends to place his character and conduct before the jury, where the nature of the case does not involve such character, and the same does not render necessary and proper the investigation thereof. Code, § 38-202; Fitzgerald v. State, 184 Ga. 19, 190 S.E. 602; Moose v. State, 145 Ga. 361, 89 S.E. 335.
2. It is essential that the jury be not improperly influenced or prejudiced against persons on trial; and if the jury act from passion or prejudice against the accused in rendering their verdict against him, a new trial will be granted. Flannagan v. State, 106 Ga. 109, 32 S.E. 80; Fitzgerald v. State, supra. When improper evidence which is harmful to the defendant is allowed over objection, it cannot be said that such evidence did not prejudice the defendant. Owens v. State, 118 Ga. 753, 45 S.E. 598; Johnson v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hodges v. State
...State, 160 Ga. 271, 127 S.E. 733; Cox v. State, 165 Ga. 145(1), 139 S.E. 861; Lanier v. State, 187 Ga. 534, 1 S.E.2d 405; Anderson v. State, 206 Ga. 527, 57 S.E.2d 563; Holmes v. State, 12 Ga.App. 359(2), 77 S.E. 187; Shealy v. State, 16 Ga.App. 191, 84 S.E. 839; Clarke v. State, supra; Coo......
-
State v. Bordis
...for her child, and wilfully and criminally neglected it, which resulted in its death from malnutrition. Anderson v. State, 206 Ga. 527, 57 S.E.2d 563 (1950) (Syllabus Opinion). The court ruled that the character of the defendant was not at issue. It held that the sexual misconduct of the de......
-
Bowden v. State
...of the wounds they depict does not affect their admissibility. Thompkins v. State, 222 Ga. 420, 151 S.E.2d 153 (1966); Anderson v. State, 206 Ga. 527, 57 S.E.2d 563 (1950). 3. In Enumeration 6, appellant alleges error in overruling his objection to the opinion testimony of Blankenship, the ......
-
Baker v. State, 62469
...by the trial court to the jury with reference to the witness' opinion testimony we find no harmful error. Compare Anderson v. State, 206 Ga. 527, 57 S.E.2d 563, Hall v. State, 86 Ga.App. 448, 71 S.E.2d 4. During the examination of the defendant as a witness in his own behalf he testified ex......