Cash v. State
| Decision Date | 21 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 24919,24919 |
| Citation | 224 Ga. 798,164 S.E.2d 558 |
| Parties | Albert Oliver CASH v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Sanders, Mottola & Haugen, A. Burt Rutledge, Newnan, for appellant.
E. W. Fleming, Sol. Gen., Hogansville, Wright Lipford, Sol. Gen., Emeritus, Newnan, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Marion O. Gordon, Mathew Robins, Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The defendant was indicted, tried and convicted of murder and thereafter sentenced to life imprisonment, the jury having recommended mercy. The appeal is from this judgment, based upon alleged errors in overruling the motion for new trial, as amended, the allowance in evidence of certain testimony and certain exhibits, in failing to charge the jury as to insanity, and in allowing persons disqualified as jurors to serve. Held:
1. Upon the arrival by police officers at the scene of the shooting, the defendant made certain incriminatory statements which the police officers were allowed to testify to over objection of counsel that the statements qualify under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974, and should not be allowed in evidence as exculpatory statements made by the defendant when not under arrest, when the case is not in the investigatory state and when nobody has been accused. These statements were made freely and voluntarily. The Miranda case holds that the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the accused unless it demonstrates a use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. This is not the situation here since there was no interrogation, and the Miranda case is not controlling. These grounds of alleged error are without merit.
2. Photographs are admissible whenever relevant, and such evidence is not subject to an objection that it would inflame the minds of the jury. Avery v. State, 209 Ga. 116, 70 S.E.2d 716; Toler v. State, 213 Ga. 12, 96 S.E.2d 593; Blount v. State, 214 Ga. 433(2), 105 S.E.2d 304. None of the enumerated errors complaining of the allowance in evidence of the photographs as prejdudicial and calculated to inflame the jury is meritorious.
3. The court did not err in excluding hearsay testimony in regard to a trip to Florida made by the accused, which testimony was not shown to be an exception to the hearsay rule. Accordingly, the enumerated errors involving this hearsay testimony are without merit.
4. There being no evidence as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carruthers v. State
...Ga. 347, 312 S.E.2d 791 (1984). 26. See Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980); Cash v. State, 224 Ga. 798, 799(1), 164 S.E.2d 558 (1968); see also OCGA § 17-5-25 (requiring state to give a copy of the warrant to persons from whom anything is seized or to......
-
Hall v. State
...700 (1948); People v. Yuen, 32 Cal.App.2d 151, 89 P.2d 438 (1939); State v. Clark, 164 Conn. 224, 319 A.2d 398 (1973); Cash v. State, 224 Ga. 798, 164 S.E.2d 558 (1968); State v. Rowe, 238 Iowa 237, 26 N.W.2d 422 (Iowa, 1947); Bowling v. Commonwealth, 942 S.W.2d 293 (Ky.1997); State v. Robi......
-
Floyd v. State
...v. State, 225 Ga. 39, 47, 165 S.E.2d 711 (1969), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 934, 90 S.Ct. 2248, 26 L.Ed.2d 805 (1970); Cash v. State, 224 Ga. 798(2), 164 S.E.2d 558 (1968). Constitutionality of the Death Penalty Statute The accused also argues that Georgia Code Ann. §§ 27-2534.1 and 27-2537 are......
-
Pulliam v. State
...not error for the trial court to decline to charge on them. See Pass v. State, 227 Ga. 730, 739, 182 S.E.2d 779 (1971); Cash v. State, 224 Ga. 798, 164 S.E.2d 558 (1968); Garrett v. State, 126 Ga.App. 83, 189 S.E.2d 860 (1972). See Graham v. State, 236 Ga. 378, 223 S.E.2d 803 (1976), on del......