Bohanan v. State

• Decision Date: 14 March 1893
• Citation: 18 S.E. 302,92 Ga. 28
• Parties: BOHANAN v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

18 S.E. 302

92 Ga. 28

BOHANAN v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

March 14, 1893

Syllabus by the Court.

1. On the trial of an indictment for a misdemeanor, a witness for the state having testified to a confession by the accused and having detailed the circumstances under which it was made, which circumstances consisted of detecting him in the criminal act, of a consequent threat to prosecute, and an attempt by the accused to bribe him not to prosecute, and the confession having then been repeated in the presence and hearing of another witness, the subsequent testimony of the first witness, that he extorted the confession should, in the absence of all further explanation, and when there was no motion made to withdraw the confession from the jury, be interpreted as a mere conclusion of the witness' mind upon the legal effect of the circumstances which he had before detailed under which the confession was made. These circumstances were not sufficient to render the confession incompetent as evidence to be considered by the jury.

2. The evidence warranted the verdict, and the motion for a new trial was properly denied.

Error from superior court, Carroll, county; S.W. Harris, Judge.

Dick Bohanan was convicted of a misdemeanor, and a new trial denied. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.

G. W Austin and Cobb & Bro., for plaintiff in error.

T. A Atkinson, Sol. Gen., by Reid & Steward, for the State.

BLECKLEY C.J.

1. After the witness stated as a part of his testimony that he extorted the confession, there was no motion made to withdraw from the jury the same confession or the testimony which the same witness had previously given concerning it. At the time this previous testimony was received it appeared to be legal for nothing was then, or had been, disclosed which could suggest that the confession was not freely and voluntarily made. On the contrary, it was shown that the accused had repeated it in the presence and hearing of another witness, thus confessing twice,--once to the person who had threatened to prosecute him, and again to that person and the other witness, these two being together when the confession was repeated. Is it erroneous to allow evidence to remain before the jury when no reason for excluding it appeared until after it was received, and no motion to withdraw it is made at any time? Must the court, without any request from the accused or his counsel, withdraw evidence which has...