Armstrong v. State
| Decision Date | 13 December 1935 |
| Docket Number | 10846. |
| Parties | ARMSTRONG v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Error was assigned on the admission in evidence of certain testimony quoted. A note by the judge as to this assignment states that a specified portion of the testimony was stricken by the court. With that part stricken out, no error harmful to the movant is shown.
2. The ruling complained of in ground 5 of the motion for new trial was not error for any reason assigned.
3. Exception is taken to the failure of the court to "charge the jury, on trial of movant's case, the law of manslaughter in his charge to the jury trying said case as embodied in section 64 of the Penal Code of Georgia (Park's, 1914)." This exception raises no question for decision by this court. It is not even specified whether the movant insists the court should have charged the law of voluntary or involuntary manslaughter.
4. The court did not err in refusing a request to instruct the jury as follows: "I charge you, gentlemen, that if Armstrong shot and killed in a sudden heat of passion, then you might find the defendant guilty of manslaughter, and not murder." The requested instruction is not complete; and besides, it is not every homicide committed as the result of passion that is to be classed as voluntary manslaughter. Smith v. State, 106 Ga. 673, 677, 32 S.E. 851, 71 Am.St.Rep. 286.
5. The court did not err in refusing to charge as requested: This was a definition of murder, and a statement that the burden of proving all the essential elements of the crime is upon the state; and this was sufficiently covered by the charge of the court.
6. There was evidence to support the verdict.
Error from Superior Court, Whitfield County; C. C. Pittman, Judge.
Sammie Armstrong was convicted of murder, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
T. H Lang, of Calhoun, and C. H. Dalton, of Dalton, for plaintiff in error.
John C. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., of Dalton, and M. U. Yeomans, Atty. Gen., and B. D. Murphy and Jno. T. Goree, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
Sammie Armstrong was indicted for the murder of Herman O'Donald. The jury found him guilty, without a recommendation. He made a motion for new trial, which was overruled, and he excepted. The original motion for new trial in this case contains the general grounds. The defendant filed an amendment to his motion, and the references hereinafter are to those grounds as numbered in the amendment.
1. In the fourth ground error is assigned upon the admission of the following testimony: "Some one hollered out in front of my house * * * and I went to the front, and G. M. Miles stood out there, and he says, 'Herman O'Donnell [O'Donald] is shot.' * * * I says, 'Did you shoot him?' And he says, The judge stated, in a note to this ground, that "the court ruled out saying that 'Sammie Armstrong shot him." With that part of the ground stricken out, there is nothing in this evidence that is hurtful to the defendant. With the name of Sammie Armstrong stricken from the evidence, there is nothing to show who it was that tried to shoot Miles.
2. The fifth ground is as follows:
"Because, during the progress of the trial and within the hearing of the jury, the trial judge did intimate and express an opinion that the defendant on trial was a party to the killing for which he was on trial; for that while the witness, Oscar Lowe, while testifying on behalf of the state, on the witness-stand, the following took place:" 'Q. What condition did you find Henson in? A. Very bad shape.
Q. Had he been shot? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where was he shot? A. On the back side of the head.
Q. What was the condition of his face?'
The following objection was then urged by Mr. Mann, of counsel for movant: 'Of course, they have not connected the case up; we prefer that they connect them up; they are trying him [movant] for the murder of Herman O'Donnell, and certainly any evidence of the condition of anybody else would not have any bearing on this case, until they connect it.' The trial judge then announced, in the hearing of the jury: 'I overrule you on that, toward connecting them up, if it was done at the same time and place, and this defendant was a party to it."
There was no error in the ruling complained of. The objection urged is based on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Werk v. Big Bunker Hill Mining Corp.
...127 Ga. 747(2), 57 S.E. 69, 27 L.R.A.,N.S., 1; Millen & Southwestern Railroad Co. v. Allen, 130 Ga. 656(4), 61 S.E. 541; Armstrong v. State, 181 Ga. 538(5), 183 S.E. 67; Douberly v. State, 184 Ga. 577, 580(6), 192 226; Johnson v. Sherrer, 185 Ga. 340, 341, 195 S.E. 149; Griffin v. Barrett, ......
-
Chalkley v. Ward, 44252
...requiring the grant of a new trial. There was no objection made by counsel at the time and no motion for a mistrial. Armstrong v. State, 181 Ga. 538, 539, 183 S.E. 67; Morris v. State, 185 Ga. 67(1), 194 S.E. 214; Ealy v. Tolbert, 210 Ga. 96(2), 78 S.E.2d 6. Enumeration of error number 7 re......
-
Cone v. State
... ... aggrieved by the statement of the judge, he should have ... objected to it at the time it was made, without waiting to ... complain for the first time in a motion for new trial ... Compare Moore v. McAfee, 151 Ga. 270(2), 106 S.E ... 274; Armstrong v. State, 181 Ga. 538(2), 183 S.E ... 67; Mickle v. Moore, 193 Ga. 150, 17 S.E.2d 728; ... Parker v. Wellons, 43 Ga.App. 721, 727, 160 S.E ... 3. In ... ground 3 it is stated: 'During the trial and while ... witnesses were being examined and cross-examined by ... ...