Brooks v. State

• Decision Date: 26 November 1897
• Citation: 108 Ga. 50,29 S.E. 485
• Parties: BROOKS . v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

29 S.E. 485

108 Ga. 50

BROOKS .

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 26, 1897.

Trial of Accessory—Confessions of Principal —New Trial—Nrwly-Discovered Evidence.

1. Where two persons are in one count of an indictment charged as joint principals, and one of them, in another count, is also charged as accessory before the fact, it is not erroneous on the trial of the latter, upon the indictment as a whole, to admit in evidence confessions made by the other accused person, after the enterprise had ended, to establish his guilt as principal, such confessions being limited to this purpose by the action of the presiding judge. Such evidence, relatively to the second count mentioned, is admissible as tending to establish the necessary element to the guilt of the person charged as accessory, to wit, the guilt of his alleged principal.

2. A ground of a motion for a new trial, based on alleged newly-discovered evidence, is without merit when the certificate of the judge affirmatively shows that such evidence was known to the accused, and referred to on the trial.

3. The verdict in this case was contrary neither to law nor to evidence.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Jackson county; N. L. Hutchins, Judge.

Addison D. Brooks was convicted of murder, and, his motion for a new trial having been overruled, he brings error. Aflirmed.

E. T. Brown and H. C. Tuck, for plaintiff in error.

C. H. Brand, Sol. Gen., and J. M. Terrill, Atty. Gen., for the State

LITTLE, J. The plaintiff in error was put on trial under a bill of indictment which charged one Grady Reynolds and himself with the murder of M. C. Hunt. One of the counts in the indictment charged Reynolds as principal and the plaintiff in error as accessory before the fact. The indictment was full, and set out in legal form all the averments necessary, and to it no exception was made. The plaintiff in error being so on trial, it was necessary, under the rules of law, in order to support the charge that the plaintiff in error was guilty as accessory before the fact, that the guilt of the person charged as principal should be made to appear. For this purpose F. M. Johnson was introduced as a witness for the state to prove confessions alleged to have been made by Reynolds of his guilt. This was objected to because of the principle that confessions of one joint offender or conspirator, made after the enterprise is ended, is admissible only against himself. It is not to be denied that this is a sound proposition, and well established In the administration of criminal law. As we understand its application, however, to the present case, the evidence of Johnson is not subject to its operation. An accessory is one who is not the chief actor in the offense, nor present at its commission; an accessory before the fact is one who, being absent at the time of the commission of the crime, procures, counsels, or commands another to commit the crime. It is therefore necessary, before one can be found guilty as accessory before the fact, that some one must not only be charged with having perpetrated the crime, but the guilt of that person must be established. Simmons v. State, 4 Ga. 465. In the trial of the plaintiff in error it was necessary, then, to establish the guilt of Reynolds, as principal, of...