Atkins v. State

• Citation: 228 Ga. 578,187 S.E.2d 132
• Decision Date: 19 January 1972
• Docket Number: No. 26902,26902
• Parties: James ATKINS v. The STATE.
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

Page 132

187 S.E.2d 132

228 Ga. 578

James ATKINS v. The STATE.

No. 26902.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Jan. 19, 1972.

Syllabus by the Court

1. There being no evidence submitted in support of appellant's motion for a change of venue, the trial court did not err in denying the motion.

2. The statement of appellant's counsel that he had not had time to prepare an adequate defense being a mere conclusion, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for a continuance.

3. The court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on (a) justifiable homicide and (b) voluntary manslaughter, as neither the evidence nor the statement by appellant authorized instructions on these principles of law.

4. Where the showing as to diligence in reference to newly discovered evidence is not satisfactory, the discretion of the trial judge in refusing to grant a new trial will not be controlled.

5. The evidence showed without dispute that the appellant killed the deceased by shooting at him with a pistol while in the act of committing armed robbery.

Ralph U. Bacon, Statesboro, for appellant.

J. Lane Johnston, Dist. Atty., Statesboro, for appellee.

ALMAND, Chief Justice.

James Atkins, along with three other named parties, was indicted on November 16, 1970, by the grand jury of Bulloch County for the offense of murder of Ray Howard while in the commission of a felony, viz. armed robbery, by shooting him with a pistol.

The case against Atkins came on for arraignment on November 19, 1970, and upon formal arraignment he pled not guilty. He was tried on November 30, 1970. The jury returned a verdict of guilty with a recommendation of mercy, and he was given a life sentence. His amended motion for a new trial being overruled, Atkins filed his notice of appeal.

1. Error is enumerated on the denial of appellant's oral motion for a change of venue. As grounds for this motion, appellant's counsel stated to the court: '(T)oo much publicity has been given this case here, too much has been written in the papers about it, too many people here are, in one way or another, connected with the deceased, and this defendant being from out of this territory, could not get a fair trial here among the people who were members of the same social clubs, same church and done business with the deceased. The deceased was more than just an average man, as far as his notoriety was concerned. He was known by almost every one. He had had more person contacts with the public than almost any one. This case is overwhelmingly weighed with resentment against these men or some one of the four of them. It is felt at this time that he could not receive a fair trial in this jurisdiction.' No evidence was submitted in support of this ground and the court did not err in denying the motion.

2. Error is assigned on the overruling of the appellant's oral motion for a continuance. Counsel for the appellant stated to the court: 'I find that we are not ready, my client informs me that he is not ready, and since the time of my last talking to him and now he has remembered the name of a witness or witnesses he would like to subpoena. This case is brought on to trial too soon after the happening for the excitement connected with the case, with regard to this sort of thing, it carries much publicity in the papers. The defense respectfully requests that the case, on that ground, be continued.'

The record discloses counsel representing the appellant was appointed by the court and signed his plea of not guilty on November 19, 1970, and represented him at his trial on November 30. No evidence was offered in support of the motion.

Motions for a...