Burtine v. The State Of Ga.
| Decision Date | 31 July 1855 |
| Docket Number | No. 76.,76. |
| Citation | 18 Ga. 534 |
| Parties | John M. Burtine, plaintiff in error. vs. The State of Georgia, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Murder, in Lee Superior Court. Tried before Judge Worrell, March Term, 1855.
When the prisoner was arraigned and put upon trial, hp moved a continuance, on the ground that the evidence taken down before the committing Magistrate, was not in Court. The motion was refused, and prisoner excepted.
Thomas Marsh, a Juror, said he had been absent from the country from July to December, but his father lived in Lee County, and he considered that his home; that he considered himself at home wherever he was. The Court held him competent, and defendant excepted.
After the prisoner's challenges were exhausted, Elijah Tucker, being put on triors, stated that he had formed and expressed a decided opinion as to the guilt of prisoner. To questions put by the State's Counsel, he said that his opinion of the guilt of the prisoner was not so fixed but that it could be removed by the evidence; and that he thought he would be controlled by the evidence rather than by his preconceived opinions. The Court held him competent, and defendant excepted.
After one of the witnesses had testified, the Solicitor General moved that his testimony, as taken down, be read over to him. The Court refused the motion, and defendant excepted.
Subsequently, on a motion for a new trial being made, the Court ordered the testimony of this witness to be corrected according to the recollection of the Court. To this proceeding defendant excepted.
The deceased (Spence) stated to a witness, after he was wounded, that Burtine beat and about ruined him. He spokelike a drunken man; told them to go away and let him alone. To this being admitted in evidence, defendant objected; and being over-ruled, excepted.
Counsel for defendant requested the Court to charge, The Court declined so to charge, but certified that he had previously told the Jury they were to judge of the credibility of these declarations. Defendant excepted.
A motion was made for a new trial, on all the preceding points; and also on the ground, that when three of the Jurors had been selected, one of them, John Ross, separated himself from the others and from the Bailiff, went into a grocery and drank liquor, and conversed and danced with the bystanders; that another Juror, Caleb Parker, also conversed with persons, not of the Jury, after he was sworn.
This ground was supported by sundry affidavits. The Jurors filed affidavits to the effect, that they had not conversed with any one in relation to the case; and the bailiff of the Jury swore, that he was with these Jurors; heard all that they said; that they did not converse in relation to the case and that the prisoner was present and in hearing of what they said.
The Court refused a new trial, and defendant excepted. Upon these several exceptions, error was assigned.
R. F. Lyon; M. Williams; H. Moore, for plaintiff in error.
Sol. Gen. Lyon, for the State.
By the Court.—Starnes, J. delivering the opinion.
But a few of the several grounds of objection which appearin the bill of exceptions in this case, were presented for our consideration at the hearing, by the Counsel for the plaintiff in error. These, only, we shall notice in the opinion; finding, as we do, no cause for interference with the judgment, on any of the other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Harvey
...question by the amicus brief filed by Butler Wooten & Peak LLP.2 See, e.g., Goodtitle v. Roe , 20 Ga. 135, 140 (1856) ; Burtine v. State , 18 Ga. 534, 537 (1855).3 The Court of Appeals cited Swindle to support its conclusion that no contemporaneous objection was required to preserve the all......
-
Sharpe v. Department of Transp.
...objection rule has long been a mainstay of Georgia trial practice. See, e.g., Goodtitle v. Roe, 20 Ga. 135(4) (1856); Burtine v. State, 18 Ga. 534(1) (1855). That rule provides in order to preserve a point of error for the consideration of an appellate court, counsel must take exception to ......
-
Rouse v. State
...objection rule has long been a mainstay of Georgia trial practice. See, e.g., Goodtitle v. Roe, 20 Ga. 135 (4) (1856); Burtine v. State, 18 Ga. 534 (1) (1855). That rule provides that, “in order to preserve a point of error for the consideration of an appellate court, counsel must take exce......
-
Crosby v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.
...objectionable testimony and thereby waived such grounds to object. See Goodtitle v. Roe, 20 Ga. 135, 140(4) (1856); Burtine v. State of Ga., 18 Ga. 534, 537(1) (1855); Nashville, Chattanooga &c. R. v. Ham, 78 Ga.App. 403, 408(1), 50 S.E.2d 831 In this case, Cooper Tire moved to strike testi......
-
The Objection Exception Is Overruled! the Georgia Supreme Court Makes a Course Correction by Reviving the Contemporaneous Objection Rule
...89-90.28. 297 Ga. 537, 775 S.E.2d 522 (2015).29. Id. at 541, 775 S.E.2d at 525.30. Williams, 311 Ga. at 442, 858 S.E.2d at 484.31. Id.32. 18 Ga. 534 (1855).33. 20 Ga. 135 (1856).34. Burtine, 18 Ga. at 535.35. Id. at 536-37. 36. Goodtitle, 20 Ga. at 140-41.37. Id. at 137-38.38. Id. at 140.39......