Brantley v. State
| Decision Date | 17 August 1922 |
| Docket Number | 3286. |
| Citation | 113 S.E. 200,154 Ga. 80 |
| Parties | BRANTLEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The court did not err in instructing the jury upon the subject of malice, as is set out in the first and second grounds of the defendant's amendment to his motion for new trial; the error assigned being, not that these instructions were incorrect, but that the state had failed to prove facts showing malice, there being ample evidence to authorize and require these instructions.
Nor were the instructions set out in the third ground of this amendment erroneous, on the alleged ground that the court did not leave to the jury the question of cooling time; the court, in this ground, dealing with the right of a son to defend his mother, and his right to defend her after the danger had passed, and having, in his charge on manslaughter expressly informed the jury that they were the judges of what was sufficient cooling time.
Nor did the court err in omitting to give in charge to the jury, in the absence of a timely written request, section 1031 of the Penal Code of 1910, on the subject of the caution with which confessions of guilt should be received, and of the need of corroborating evidence to convict upon a confession alone. Malone v. State, 77 Ga. 767; Sellers v State, 99 Ga. 212, 25 S.E. 178; Walker v State, 118 Ga. 34, 44 S.E. 850; Patterson v State, 124 Ga. 408, 52 S.E. 534; Pierce v. State, 132 Ga. 27, 63 S.E. 792; Roberson v. State, 135 Ga. 654, 70 S.E. 175. In Lucas v. State, 110 Ga. 756 (4), 36 S.E. 87, the court charged upon confessions, but omitted all reference to the need of corroborating evidence, and in that respect that case is different from the case at bar. Having undertaken to charge on that subject, the instruction should have been full and complete. Besides, in that case no mention is made of the earlier cases of Malone v. State, 77 Ga. 767, and Sellers v. State, 99 Ga. 212, 25 S.E. 178.
Nor did the court err in omitting to charge on the effect of proof of the good character of the defendant, in the absence of proper request. Scott v. State, 137 Ga. 337 (3), 73 S.E. 575; McLendon v. State, 7 Ga.App. 687, 67 S.E. 846.
Nor did the court err in omitting to charge, with or without request, on the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to authorize a conviction; the state having proved a positive confession of guilt. Eberhart v. State, 47 Ga. 599; Perry v. State, 110 Ga. 238 (3), 36 S.E. 781; Griner v. State, 121 Ga. 614, 49 S.E. 700; Smith v. State, 125 Ga. 296, 299, 54 S.E. 127; Thomas v. State, 18 Ga.App. 101, 88 S.E. 917.
Nor did the court commit error, in the absence of a proper request, in omitting to charge the jury that they were judges of the law and facts. Jones v. State, 136 Ga. 157, 71 S.E. 6.
The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict.
Error from Superior Court, Turner County; R. Eve, Judge.
James Brantley was convicted of murder, and he brings error. Affirmed.
James Brantley was indicted for the murder of his father. On the morning of the homicide he went to a neighbor's house and told the latter that his father said, "Send him two shells." When asked what his father wanted them for, he said his daddy wanted to kill a rabbit in the woodpile. This was about 9 o'clock in the morning. He did not get any shells at this neighbor's. Shortly afterwards a gun was heard to fire. Within a few minutes neighbors went to the home of the deceased, who was found shot and lying on the porch of his house. He was shot in the left side, and the hole was as big as the crown of a hat. He was in great misery, and died in 30 minutes. When these neighbors reached the scene, the defendant was sitting on the woodpile. The deceased was shot from his head down with small shot, and one shot in his left shoulder. There was a difference in the wounds. One seemed to be made with scattering bird shot about medium size, and shot from a gun some distance away. The other seemed to be made with a shotgun at very close range, or with a cut shell, making a big hole, and shooting the arm in two. The defendant said he for one shot his father. When asked who shot him, the deceased replied they shot him. After being pressed to tell who they were, he finally said the boys, as one witness remembered.
The defendant made a free and voluntary statement to the deputy sheriff, who arrested him, in which he stated he shot the deceased. He said both of them shot him. They said each shot him once, and that was all the shells they had. The defendant said he had a single-barrel shotgun, and the other brother had a double-barrel shotgun. They stated to this officer the position in which the deceased was standing at the time he fired, and said that they had been getting the hogs out of the field that morning, and when they came back to the house it was about 9 o'clock, and they were eating breakfast, when their mother came in crying, and they asked her what she was crying about, and she said, "Your father beat me this morning," and the defendant said he had "bored up his last time," and "let's kill," and they got their guns. The deceased was out at the barn by the haystack, and they went there where he was, and the biggest one (the defendant) said to him:
The deceased wheeled around and ran, and when he ran the defendant shot him, being pretty close to him, and the deceased jumped over the fence, and started back to the house, and the little one (the other brother of defendant) said he ran to cut him off, and ran up to the fence and shot at him, and the deceased ran into the house Blood was found on the bed in the room into which the deceased went. The deceased then went out of the house and went under the house. The defendant said, after he shot the deceased, he went over to a neighbor's house to try to borrow some shells to finish killing him. He said he wanted to do a good job. This officer testified that he believed David (the younger brother) said he fired the second shot. David said he thought he was going to the branch, and he got to the barn before him, and he ran around the barn to cut the deceased off, and the old man wheeled and went up the lane to the home, and he was a good ways from deceased when he shot him. He said, when he shot the old man, he was in the gate. The mother had a rag around her head when the neighbors reached the home, but there were no signs of blood on her.
The defendant stated that on the morning of the homicide his father got mad with his mother about something. The deceased beat and knocked her down two or three times, knocked her speechless and unconscious, and "killed her for a few minutes." He was beating her unmercifully, and had done this several times before. He tried to get the deceased to stop, and he wouldn't stop. He ran in the house after the gun. By that time the deceased had gone out, picked his mother off the ground, and carried her in the house, and laid her on the bed. Defendant met the deceased in the door as he came out, and shot him. Before defendant shot his father, he begged him to stop beating his mother, and he would not do it. It looked like he was trying to kill her, and he could not stand to see his mother done that way, and he shot his father to prevent him from killing his mother. The deceased had been threatening his mother's life, and saying he was going to kill her. That morning, when he got up, it looked like the deceased started to try to do it. He hit her across her head with a stick, and broke and sprained her arm, and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial