Carter v. State
| Decision Date | 09 July 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 26561,26561 |
| Citation | 183 S.E.2d 392,227 Ga. 788 |
| Parties | Polk A. CARTER v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.
2. The corpus delicti was established by the evidence.
3. The trial court properly admitted the dying declarations of the victim into evidence.
4. In the absence of a request, it was not error to fail to charge on the credibility of the alleged dying declarations of the victim.
5. In the absence of a request, it was not error to fail to charge on the necessity for corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice.
6. The trial court did not err in charging the jury on reasonable doubt and it was not confusing and misleading to the jury.
7. It was not error to refuse to direct a verdict of acquittal.
Bruce W. Kirbe, Harold Lambert, Bainbridge, for appellant.
A. Wallace Cate, Dist. Atty., Bainbridge, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Courtney Wilder Stanton, Asst. Atty. Gen., W. Hensell Harris, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.
Polk A. Carter was convicted of the murder of Jim Clark who died of arsenic poisoning on August 6, 1969. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment.
The evidence shows that Effie Bell Clark was the victim's wife. She and the victim had married in 1968 shortly after the death of her first husband. The defendant is her son-in-law. His wife is Pearl Bell Carter. Pearl Bell Carter had been instrumental in having her mother, Effie, committed to Milledgeville State Hospital in 1966 for a period of 20 days. After the death of her father in 1968 Pearl and the defendant pressured Effie into marrying the victim by threatening to send her back to Milledgeville if she refused. Effie was afraid of the defendant. After Effie married the victim, the defendant and Pearl wanted him to make a will so that Effie would receive his property at his death. They told Effie that he would be worth more to her dead than alive. They told her that if she did not 'go along with this,' they would send her back to Milledgeville. Effie testified that she heard the defendant and Pearl discuss 'getting rid' of the victim. On Thursday, July 24, 1969, Effie and the victim ate dinner at the defendant's home. The defendant was not present at this time. He was a traveling salesman and was home only on weekends. Pearl sprinkled a pink powder on the victim's plate of chicken and he ate it. Effie thought the pink powder was spice but it was not put on anyone else's food. The following Saturday Effie and the victim again ate dinner at the defendant's home and Pearl again put some of 'that old pink-looking stuff' on some brunswick stew she served the victim. On this same day the defendant fixed the victim a drink of liquor and Effie testified that she saw the defendant put some pink powder in it. On their way home, the victim told her that he was sick at his stomach. The following Sunday the defendant and Pearl came to the victim's home and brought her husband some liquor which the defendant prepared for him. Effie and the victim spent the following Thursday night at the home of the defendant. The victim was sick and vomited all night, he told Effie early Friday morning he was going to die, and that there was no use in going to a doctor because 'this winds me up.' He was taken to the hospital in Cairo on Friday, August 1. On Saturday, August 2, the defendant called the victim's doctor and said the victim wanted to go home. The defendant and Pearl brought him home from the hospital wrapped in a sheet. He seemed improved to Effie but he was not at home very long before he became worse. He signed the purported will the day he was brought home from the hospital.
The evidence shows that the purported will of the victim was written by Pearl, was edited by the defendant, and was executed under pressure of Pearl while the defendant stood behind a door listening; that the defendant thanked one of the witnesses for signing the will when he left the room; that the instrument provided that Pearl would have complete power of attorney over the property of the victim from the day of its execution and for the balance of his life; that after his death, she would have complete control of his estate; and that in the event she failed to function in any capacity, the defendant would exercise the powers granted to her.
The evidence shows that all insecticides and pesticides which contain arsenic are required by law to be colored pink.
Odel Clark, son of the victim, testified that he and his brothers lived in Florida. His sister, who lived in Cairo near the home of the victim, called him and told him that their father was sick and he and his brothers came to Cairo on Sunday morning. When they walked into the house, Effie picked up the telephone, dialed a number and said: 'All the boys are here, all the boys are here' and then hung up the receiver. The victim told them he had been poisoned, that he got his first dose in some chicken at the defendant's home and the second one in an alcoholic drink, and that his throat and stomach were burning. The victim asked Effie for a laxative to 'work this stuff out of me' and she refused to give it to him. The victim went to bed and would not let his children help him.
Clifford Bell, a nephew, testified that on Wednesday, a week before the victim's death, the victim had called him at work and stated that he wanted to sell him his property, he told him that he did not know whether he would be able to get the money to buy it. The victim stated he wanted him to have the property so that he could be through with it. The witness later notified him that he would buy the property. When he saw his uncle again, the next Saturday, after he returned from the hospital, he was swollen and in pain. In the presence of Effie, the victim told him that he had been poisoned and that he was going to die. The next day, Sunday, he again visited his uncle and the defendant and Pearl were there. The defendant had his stethoscope and was examining the victim, mashing him in the stomach and neck to such an extent that the witness asked him to stop because he was hurting him. The defendant and Pearl gave the victim a dose of 'medicine' while he was there which they said had been prescribed by Dr. Singleton. The doctor testified that he had not prescribed any medicine for the victim.
Other witnesses testified that the victim told them that he had received his 'first dose' of poison in some chicken and another in an alcoholic drink at the home of the defendant and Pearl, that he had never been in such a condition in his life, that he had been pressured into signing a will, that the defendant and his wife were trying to get his money but he had fixed it so they would not, and that he was going to die. These witnesses also gave detailed evidence of his physical condition, and the fact that he was in extreme pain and believed that he was going to die.
One of his neighbors visited him on Monday before his death on Wednesday and found him in pain. The victim told him that he needed a doctor and something done for him. The neighbor arranged for him to go to the hospital in Thomasville that day.
The male attendant at the hospital in Thomasville testified that he talked with the victim on Monday before his death on Wednesday, that the victim's mouth and throat were 'eaten up' and his throat was swollen, that he could not swallow water, that he was distended and running off at the bowels, that he said he had been poisoned by the defendant and his wife, that he had been pressured into making a will, and that he was going to die.
The victim died on Wednesday from arsenic poisoning administered in a series of small non-lethal doses reaching a level of 2 1/2 times the amount sufficient to cause death.
The defendant was sworn and testified in his own behalf. He related his educational training in biochemistry and related sciences and testified that with his knowledge in the scientific field that had he wanted to dispose of the victim that he would have employed other means than arsenic, which is so easily detectible. His testimony showed that he was an expert in the field of chemistry and had an extensive knowledge of heavy metal poisoning. He denied giving the victim arsenic or conspiring with anyone else to give it to him.
1. The appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict of guilty because 'it is a case built entirely on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCorquodale v. State
...232 Ga. 136, 205 S.E.2d 240; House v. State, 232 Ga. 140, 205 S.E.2d 217; Gregg v. State, 233 Ga. 117, 210 S.E.2d 659; Carter v. State, 227 Ga. 788, 183 S.E.2d 392; Wheeler v. State, 229 Ga. 617, 193 S.E.2d 814; Allen v. State, 231 Ga. 17, 200 S.E.2d 106; Smith v. State, 230 Ga. 876, 199 S.......
-
Carter v. State
...manslaughter and was given a 10-year probated sentence. The appellant's direct appeal was denied by this court in Carter v. State, 227 Ga. 788, 183 S.E.2d 392 (1971). The appellant served eight years and was paroled. In an apparent effort to be relieved of his status as a parolee, he filed ......
-
Holcomb v. State
...declarant was in the article of death at the time the statement was made and was conscious of his condition. E.g., Carter v. State, 227 Ga. 788, 794, 183 S.E.2d 392 (1971); Emmett v. State, 195 Ga. 517, 533-34, 25 S.E.2d 9 (1943), overruled on other grounds, Howard v. State, 237 Ga. 471, 47......
-
Early v. State
...as to whether the appellant's wife actually realized her impending death was a matter properly submitted to the jury. Carter v. State, 227 Ga. 788, 183 S.E.2d 392 (1971); Satterfield v. State, supra. See also Parker v. State, 197 Ga. 340, 29 S.E.2d 61 The fact that the appellant's wife surv......