Beckworth v. State
| Decision Date | 13 February 1937 |
| Docket Number | 11607. |
| Citation | 190 S.E. 184,183 Ga. 871 |
| Parties | BECKWORTH v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Error from Superior Court, Wilkes County; C.J. Perryman, Judge.
Johnnie Beckworth was convicted of murder, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Hugh E. Combs and W. A. Slaton, both of Washington Ga., for plaintiff in error.
J Cecil Davis, Sol. Gen., of Warrenton, M. J. Yeomans, Atty Gen., and B. D. Murphy, Asst. Atty. Gen., and E. J. Clower, of Atlanta, for the State.
Syllabus OPINION.
1. 'On the trial of one charged with the murder of his wife, evidence is admissible which tends to show that for a long period of time prior to the homicide, and until a short time prior thereto, the defendant was cruel to and illtreated his wife, as tending to show malice and motive and to rebut the presumed improbability of a husband murdering his wife.' Josey v. State, 137 Ga. 769, 74 S.E. 282.
(a) Under the foregoing principle the court did not err in admitting the evidence referred to in grounds 1, 6, and 9 of the motion for new trial, which tended to show indifference on the part of the accused as to provision for his wife, or in admitting the evidence set forth in grounds 4, 5, and 7, which tended to show a long course of ill-treatment continuing until shortly before the homicide. The present case differs on its facts from Daniel v. State, 103 Ga. 202(3), 29 S.E. 767, and similar cases where there was nothing to connect the former conduct with the homicide.
(b) The charge complained of in ground 18 was in accordance with the principle quoted above, and was not erroneous upon the ground that it would have authorized the jury to find the defendant guilty, regardless of any testimony of accident and misfortune.
2. The testimony of an insurance agent, to the effect that within two years before the homicide the accused applied for insurance on the life of his wife, but that he failed to bring his wife for an examination as directed, was not irrelevant and inadmissible, as contended in ground 3, in view of evidence to the effect that the accused later obtained a policy of insurance on the life of his wife through a different agent, which policy was payable to the accused and was in force at the time of the homicide. Johnson v. State, 130 Ga. 22(2), 60 S.E. 158; Powers v. State, 172 Ga. 1(12), 157 S.E. 195.
3. The court did not err, as contended in grounds 8 and 2, respectively, in admitting evidence as to the failure of the accused to make arrangements for the funeral, and as to his demeanor at the funeral service, the objection to such evidence being in substance that it was irrelevant and immaterial, related to transactions happening since the time of the homicide, did not tend to show motive, was in the nature of hearsay, and was prejudicial. Frank v. State, 141 Ga. 243, 80 S.E. 1016.
4. A sister of the accused having testified that he and his wife had lived or visited in the home of the witness at various times since their marriage, and that, so far as the witness could tell, his treatment of his wife was good, and that she never saw him abuse his wife in any way, the court did not err, as contended in ground 10, in admitting in evidence, solely for the purpose of impeachment, a letter shown to have been written on August 23, 1932, by the witness to the father of the deceased, and containing matter contradictory of the testimony. While the homicide did not occur until January 3, 1936, the testimony of the witness was material in view of other evidence of continuous ill-treatment, and consequently the letter related to matters relevant to the testimony and to the case. Code, § 38-1803.
5. When the letter just referred to was offered in evidence, the solicitor general stated that he was tendering it for the purpose of impeachment. The judge inquired, 'Impeachment of Mrs. Broom?' The solicitor replied, 'Yes, sir.' The judge then ruled as follows: Held, that the statement as thus made by the judge was not cause for a new trial, as contended in ground 11, on the ground that it expressed or intimated to the jury an opinion that the witness was impeached or would be impeached by the introduction of such letter. Howell v. State, 162 Ga. 14(5), Reed v. State,
163 Ga. 206(2), 135 S.E. 748; Daniels v. Avery, 167 Ga. 54(3c), 145 S.E. 45.
6. Since there was nothing in the evidence or the defendant's statement which would have authorized a conviction of involuntary manslaughter in the commission of an unlawful act, the court did not err in charging the jury in such manner as to exclude that grade of involuntary manslaughter, and in charging upon the subject of involuntary manslaughter only as related to the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection. There is no merit in grounds 12 and 13.
7. The court instructed the jury in effect that, if they believed beyond a reasonable doubt, from the evidence in the case, that the defendant did at the time and place alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial