Bennett v. State
| Citation | 70 S.E.2d 882,86 Ga.App. 39 |
| Decision Date | 23 April 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 33927,33927,2 |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
| Parties | BENNETT v. STATE |
Boykin & Boykin, O. W. Roberts, Jr., Carrollton, for plaintiff in error.
Wright Lipford, Sol. Gen., Newnan, Robert D. Tisinger, Carrollton, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. Where, upon the trial of one indicted for murder, the evidence introduced by the State was uncontradicted that the defendant killed the person named in the indictment by shooting him in the head with a pistol; and the defendant, who introduced no evidence, admitted, in his statement to the jury, that he had killed such person, but contended that prior to the time he shot the named person, he and such person had engaged in a dispute during which the person killed had profaned him and had struck him, knocking him down, and had threatened to kill him, the evidence, together with the statement of the defendant, authorized the verdict finding the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Goldsmith v. State, 54 Ga.App. 268, 187 S.E. 694, and cases cited.
2. When affidavits are offered in support of a ground of a motion for a new trial, complaining of irregularities in the conduct of jurors selected to try the accused, and a counter-showing is made that results in a conflict in the evidence, the trial judge must pass upon such evidence, and his findings will not be controlled unless it is made to appear that he has abused the discretion vested in him as trior of the issue this presented, Jones v. State, 136 Ga. 157, 71 S.E. 6; Marshman v. State, 138 Ga. 864, 76 S. E. 572; Shivers v. State, 181 Ga. 557, 562(4), 183 S.E. 489; and where no actual injury is charged or shown to have occurred by virtue of the jurors being allowed, prior to the verdict, to occupy separate rooms in a hotel on the night prior to the day on which the verdict was rendered, or by virtue of the two bailiffs having engaged in 'general' conversation with some of the jurors, the presumption of injury arising upon a showing of irregularities in the conduct of jurors selected to try the accused may be rebutted, Morakes v. State, 201 Ga. 425(3, 4) and cases cited at page 435, 40 S.E.2d 120, at pages 127, 128; and where it appeared from the affidavit of all the jurors 'that they did not, after having been impanelled and sworn in the case * * * discuss the case with anyone other than among themselves, and that the discussions took place in a room provided for the jury * * * and that they did not hear any person or persons * * * at any * * * time [while outside the jury box] express an opinion about the case or make any statement with reference to the case'--the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in finding that the State had carried the burden of showing that no harm resulted to the defendant, and in overruling special grounds 2 and 3 of the motion for a new trial.
3. Where in a ground of a motion for a new trial it is alleged that, 'while in the course of discussion and deliberation of the issues of said case, and before any verdict was reached in said case, [one 'and/or' two jurors] made in the presence of the other jurors impanelled, a biased and prejudiced statement, in substance as follows: 'Carlos Bennett [the defendant] is a bad character. Several years ago a government agent was checking his cotton acreage and Carlos Bennett became dissatisfied and ordered the government agent off his land at the point of a gun,''...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State
...in the conduct of the jury, the appellate court will not reverse unless the trial court has abused its discretion. Bennett v. State, 86 Ga.App. 39, 70 S.E.2d 882. This it clearly has not 7. Dr. Johnson also contends that because of the irregularities involving the jury, the court erred in n......
-
Post-Tensioned Const., Inc. v. VSL Corp., POST-TENSIONED
...234, 245. Unless there is an abuse of discretion the appellate court will not upset the trial judge's determination. Bennett v. State, 86 Ga.App. 39(2), 70 S.E.2d 882; Smith v. Blackshear, 127 Ga.App. 610, 194 S.E.2d 519. We do not agree that the irregularity in the conduct of the jury whic......
-
Hart v. State, 61192
...court's ruling on alleged improper juror conduct, the appellate court will not upset the trial judge's determination. Bennett v. State, 86 Ga.App. 39(2), 70 S.E.2d 882. In this case we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to remove the 2. At the end of the firs......