Brown v. State
| Decision Date | 11 July 1918 |
| Docket Number | 804. |
| Citation | 96 S.E. 435,148 Ga. 264 |
| Parties | BROWN v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The evidence authorized the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge. The special assignments of error examined and held not to show cause for reversal.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Where the case did not depend entirely upon circumstantial evidence, and there was no request to charge thereon, the failure to charge thereon was not error.
In a trial for murder, defended on the ground of insanity, a charge stating defendant's contentions held not objectionable for not stating that he claimed that he did not kill deceased.
In such a charge stating defendant's contentions, held not objectionable as amounting to an expression of the court's opinion that he killed deceased.
The law will not excuse a killing as the result of voluntary drunkenness alone.
A charge on killing as a result of voluntary drunkenness considered with charge upon insanity as an excuse for crime held not objectionable as denying benefit of defendant's contention that his mind was so diseased that he was not responsible for any drunkenness.
The refusal to charge that defendant should have the benefit of any doubt on the whole showing, including the question of sanity, the jury did not deprive defendant of the benefit of reasonable doubt on the question of intent, in view of other instructions thereon.
The competency of a witness on account of age was a question for the trial court, and in the absence of any contrary showing the Supreme Court would presume the judicious exercise of the trial court's discretion.
The refusal to permit a certain hypothetical question was not error, where the trial court afterwards allowed the witness to answer the precise question.
A refusal to declare a mistrial for solicitor general's statement in argument, "the humble home of the little negro, and the blood is crying out for vengeance," was not error, where the court at once pronounced it improper, and instructed the jury not to consider it.
Error from Superior Court, Carroll County; J. R. Terrell, Judge.
Jim Brown was convicted of murder, his motion for a new trial was refused, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Smith & Spradlin and Willis Smith, all of Carrollton, for plaintiff in error.
C. E. Roop, Sol. Gen., of Carrollton, Clifford Walker, Atty. Gen., and M. C. Bennet, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Jim Brown was convicted of the offense of murder, and, upon recommendation of the jury, was sentenced to life imprisonment. He moved for a new trial, which was refused him, and he excepted. For the state, the evidence tended to show that the accused had been drawn, under the act of Congress, known as the Selective Draft Law (Act Cong. May 18, 1917, c. 15, 40 Stat. 76), for service in the army of the United States. He did not wish to serve, and a short while before the homicide for which he was indicted and convicted he inquired of a witness whether one could escape military service by committing an offense against the laws of the state. The witness expressed the view that if one should commit a serious offense he might escape, and the accused replied, "I believe I will get me a negro." On the night of the homicide the accused went to the house of the deceased. He broke the glass from the windows with a scantling. He called aloud, "God damn it, the Germans have come; get out of there." He went to the "chicken house" and killed some of the chickens. He went into the dwelling house, from which all the occupants had fled except the deceased, a seven year old boy, and dragged the boy by the feet out the back door and around the house. While the boy was lying on the ground, calling to his aged grandfather, the accused hit him on the head with his hand and fist. Later the accused went again into the house, set the bedding on fire, and then went away. Soon thereafter the boy was found dead in the yard, with blood oozing from his mouth and ears. His head was lying near a rock and his skull was crushed. The accused was about 24 years old, and weighed about 175 pounds. He was drunk or drinking whisky on the afternoon before the homicide, and a witness saw him "stagger" in the yard at the time of the homicide. The accused filed a general plea of not guilty, but did not make a statement. The evidence offered by him was confined solely to the question of his sanity at the time of the commission of the homicide.
It is contended that this case depended entirely upon circumstantial evidence, and that the failure of the judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. State
...unless it is clear that such action failed to eliminate from the consideration of the jury such improper statements. Brown v. State, 148 Ga. 264, 266, 96 S.E. 435; Johnson v. State, 150 Ga. 67(1), 102 S.E. 439; Waller v. State, 164 Ga. 128(4), 138 S.E. 67.' Nelson v. State, 187 Ga. 576, 583......
-
Sparks v. State
...to declare a mistrial[, after giving curative instructions,] was erroneous. See Clements v. State, 123 Ga. 547, 51 S.E. 595; Brown v. State, 148 Ga. 264, 96 S.E. 435. Compare Glenn v. State, 205 Ga. 32[, 36], 52 S.E.2d 319. Motions of this character are addressed to the discretion of the tr......
-
Burdette v. Mcdowell, A12A1773.
...374 (1925) (absent a showing on the record, appellate courts “must presume that there was no abuse of discretion”); Brown v. State, 148 Ga. 264, 266, 96 S.E. 435 (1918) (“[I]n the absence of any showing to the contrary, we presume the court's discretion ... was judiciously exercised.”). Jud......
-
Hornsby v. State
...unless it is clear that such action failed to eliminate from the consideration of the jury such improper statements. Brown v. State, 148 Ga. 264, 266 (96 SE 435); Johnson v. State, 150 Ga. 67(1) (102 SE 439); Waller v. State, 164 Ga. 128(4) (138 SE 67); Nelson v. State, 187 Ga. 576, 583 (1 ......