Blount v. State, 20178
| Decision Date | 10 October 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 20178,20178 |
| Citation | 214 Ga. 433,105 S.E.2d 304 |
| Parties | James Madison BLOUNT v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Lewis & Rozier, Dickens & Dickens, G.L. Dickens, Louis H. Rozier, Sparta, George L. Jackson, Gray, for plaintiff in error.
George D. Lawrence, Sol. Gen., Eatonton, Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Rubye G.Jackson, Duputy Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
James Madison Blount was tried and convicted of murder without a recommendation to mercy and was sentenced to death. He filed his motion for new trial upon the general grounds, and amended adding a number of special grounds. His motion was denied. The exception here is to this judgment. Held:
1. Special grounds 1, 9, and 10 complain because certain alleged incriminatory statements by the defendant were admitted in evidence over the objection that the State had failed to show that the statements were freely and voluntarily made. In so far as this contention is concerned, we deem it sufficient to say again what was said in Hall v. State, 213 Ga. 557, 100 S.E.2d 176, 177, as follows: 'Where a witness, who testified to incriminating statements made to him by the accused, testified that he did not threaten the accused, and the accused was not coerced by anyone, that the accused was not promised anything, that he was not abused and was advised that he might have legal counsel, it was not error to overrule an objection upon the ground that the statements were not shown to be free and voluntary.' See also Edwards v. State (Blount v. State), 213 Ga. 552, 100 S.E.2d 172.
2. Special grounds 3 and 4 complain because certain photographs were introduced in evidence over timely objection. It is contended that such photographs served no real purpose other than to show a corpse for the purpose of exciting passion. As to these identical photographs objected to in the case of Hall v. State, supra, this court said: 'It was not error to admit in evidence over objection photographs of the body of the deceased, an ax, and a wooden bar which some of the evidence showed were used in the slaying by this accused and his coconspirators to rob.'
3. Special ground 11 complains because the trial court refused to allow to the defendant the right to an individual examination of each of the jurors from whom the jury was to be selected, prior to interposing any challenge. The defendant contends that Code, § 59-705 gives him this right. The pertinent portion of this section reads as follows: This language clearly states that the defendant has the right contended for. It does not leave the matter to the discretion of the trial judge, but states that the defendant 'shall' have the right to an individual examination of each juror prior to interposing a challenge. Counsel for the State, while admitting that the Code section provides for this procedure in civil cases, insists that the slight difference in language used with reference to civil causes and criminal cases shows an intention on the part of the legislature to restrict this right to civil causes. There is no merit in this contention. The differences in the language used arises from the differences in the provisions made by law for making the panels and in selecting and qualifying jurors...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Britten v. State
...strikes. What is here ruled is in harmony with the decisions in Waller v. State, 213 Ga. 291(2), 99 S.E.2d 113; Blount v. State, 214 Ga. 343(3), 105 S.E.2d 304; and Ferguson v. State, 218 Ga. 173(1), 126 S.E.2d 798. Whitworth v. State, 155 Ga. 395(1), 117 S.E. 450, does not require a holdin......
-
Maltbie v. State
...read newspaper editorials which, though not mentioning the case they were trying, included cases of that class); Blount v. State, 214 Ga. 433(4), 105 S.E.2d 304 (1958) (The bailiff in charge of the jury went to a room separate and apart from the jurors and went to bed); Allen v. State, 215 ......
-
McMichael v. State
...is upon the State to remove this presumption by proper proof." Shaw v. State, supra, 83 Ga. at 98, 9 S.E. 768. See Blount v. State, 214 Ga. 433(4), 105 S.E.2d 304 (1958); see also Henderson v. State, 251 Ga. 398, 403, 306 S.E.2d 645 (1983). As was said in Monroe v. State, 5 Ga. 85, 145 (184......
-
Anthony v. State
...prior to interposing a challenge.' The denial by the judge of the right given by this statute is reversible error. Blount v. State, 214 Ga. 433, 105 S.E.2d 304; Ferguson v. State, 218 Ga. 173, 126 S.E.2d 798. However, where the accused is not denied the right by the trial judge, but only fa......