Chatterton v. State

• Decision Date: 07 October 1965
• Docket Number: No. 23109,23109
• Citation: 221 Ga. 424,144 S.E.2d 726
• Parties: Roy Dale CHATTERTON v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 726

144 S.E.2d 726

221 Ga. 424

Roy Dale CHATTERTON v. The STATE.

No. 23109.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Oct. 7, 1965.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Even though a conviction for crime, procured by perjured evidence and known to be such by the State's prosecuting attorney, amounts to a denial of due process of law required by the State and Federal Constitutions, yet Code § 110-706, which authorizes a new trial when a conviction is based upon perjury and requires that proof of such perjury be made by judgment of conviction, is not unconstitutional in that it denies due process and equal protection of the law.

2. Where as here the evidence is in substantial conflict as to whether the defendant can obtain a fair trial in the county where the case is tried, the trial judge did not err in overruling a motion for change of venue.

3. Where the movant has full knowledge of facts before the trial and ample opportunity to offer proof concerning them, a new trial will not be granted on the ground that such facts constitute newly discovered evidence.

4. Where there is no evidence that jurors who read newspaper accounts of the trial of the defendant's co-conspirator gave credence to the articles or were influenced by them, the trial judge properly denies a challenge to the jurors made upon the ground that they were incompetent by reason of having read the articles.

5. The rule is that so long as the conspiracy to conceal the fact that crime has been committed or the identity of the perpetrators of the offense continues the parties to such conspiracy are to be considered so much a unit that the declarations of either are admissible against the other.

6. There must be some affirmative action taken by the court in admitting evidence before exception can be taken to its admission.

7. Where no rule is alleged to have been invoked or made as to the admissibility of certain evidence, the mere allegation that such evidence was in fact inadmissible presents nothing for consideration or review of the case.

8. Where a ground contending certain evidence was incompetent does not set forth the objectionable evidence nor indicate its placement in the record and fails to reveal that objection was made to its admission, it is too indefinite to be considered.

9, 10. Where a charge approved, in substance, by this court covers the facet of the case to which it has application, a new trial will not be granted because such charge is incorrect or because the court did not give additional unrequested instructions to the jury.

11. A ground predicated on the discovery of new and material evidence, which does not allege the evidence could not have been discovered, through diligence on the part of the defendant or his counsel, prior to the trial of the case shows no error.

At the January term of Chattooga Superior Court, Roy Dale Chatterton and Woodrow Whisman were separately indicted by the grand jury of Chattooga County for the offense of murdering Billy A. Copeland.

The defendant and Whisman were hitch-hiking through this State from West Virginia to Florida on December 15, 1964, when they accosted the victim Billy Copeland who permitted them to enter his automobile and ride as his guests. Copeland had started from LaFayette to Rome to carry his son home from school for the Christmas holidays. After traveling several miles in the automobile the defendant and Whisman, by use of a knife and pistol, commandeered Copeland's automobile and kidnapped him. They drove to a lonely and deserted house in Chattooga County, forced their victim to remove all of his outer clothing and robbed him of various articles including his knife, watch, gloves and jacket, together with $40 in money. While rifling his pockets the thieves came upon a picture or private papers of Copeland. When he asked for the picture or papers they became enraged and both struck him heavey blows with a board. They then bound and dragged him into a back room of the house. They left him semiconscious and in a critical condition. The culprits drove the victim's automobile to Kentucky and when it finally would run no farther, they stole a Buick. The latter car they drove to Guyton, Ga., where they were apprehended by officers on December 18, 1964. At the time they were possessed of Copeland's coat, watch and gloves.

Concerning their arrest, Detective Randolph Strickland testified that when apprehended and arrested on suspicion of having stolen the automobile they then were driving, Whisman, who had been placed by the officers with his hands against a wall, attempted to lower his hands in an effort to procure a knife he had in his pocket. The officer related that Whisman in Chatterton's presence made the remark that had he been able to get to the knife he would have left the officer's 'guts' lying in the street. Strickland also testified that when arrested Chatterton gave his name as Caulfield and Whisman identifed himself as Adkins. They both protested they were entirely innocent.

Lodged in the Chatham County jail, the defendant and Whisman were interview by Billy W. Fields and Randolph Strickland. On December 22, 1964, the defendant made a written confession in the presence of Patricia Brown and Detectives Billy Fields and Randolph Strickland. The circumstances concerning this confession were related by Billy Fields. He testified: 'Q. I will ask you if Mr. Chatterton and Mr. Whisman made certain statements to you admitting that they killed Billy Copeland, the deceased in this case? A. Yes, sir, they did. Q. At any time prior to the making of any statement to you on the 22nd or after the 22nd, prior to that time, did you or anyone ever threaten, threaten or intimidate or harass Mr. Chatterton or Mr. Whisman in any way, nature or form whatsoever? A. No, sir, we did not. Q. Did you or anyone in your presence threaten to harm them in any way whatsoever, that is to say Chatterton or Whisman? A. No, sir, we did not. Q. Did either you or anyone in your presence, offer them any reward or benefit or hope of reward or benefit which could in any way possibly accrue to the advantage of either, in order to get them to make these various statements? A. No, sir, we did not. Q. The statements which they made, which Chatterton made and Whisman made on the 22nd and at times after that, were all of those statements freely and voluntarily made by Mr. Chatterton and Mr. Whisman? A. Yes, sir, they were.'

Later the defendant made a similar confession to Emmett Whitfield, Jack Knott and Bill Hart. The State's witnesses testified the defendant's confessions were freely and voluntarily made, and further testified the defendant was fully advised of his constitutional rights and positively stated he did not want a lawyer.

The defendant in an unsworn statement insisted the confessions were induced by a threat and promise of F. B. I. Agent Boyle. His statement was: that he was arrested on Friday night and taken to the Chatham County jail where he was kept in solitary confinement for approximately four days or until Tuesday morning; that he was out of solitary confinement before he made a statement; that he was interrogated at night, mostly by the F. B. I., three times while he was there; that he asked for an attorney when first brought to jail and was told they would give him one, but never got one; that when interrogated by the F. B. I. they suggested he make a statement and offered him inducements; that they did not offer him anything the first time he was interrogated; that he asked for a lawyer but did not get one; that the second time he was interrogated no offers were made but he again requested a lawyer and still didn't get one; that an offer was made to him the night he confessed; that 'the gentleman in charge' said 'if I would make a confession that he would see to it that I was committed to a mental institution'; that the agent said if the defendant didn't admit being involved in the beating of Copeland 'he would see to it that I burned.'

The defendant further related in his statement: that he asked for clothes and money and was told by the F. B. I. agent he would see about getting it; that the defendant had no way of even buying cigarettes and that Fields and Strickland were 'all time sending us cigarettes and coffee and stuff while we was in confinement'; that he never told Fields about only being able to fry once; that when he made his confession to Fields he was still under the influence of statements made by the F. B. I.; that he wouldn't have talked with Fields except for the agent's influence and was relying on 'their promise to get him committed to a mental institution.'

Sidney Smith, an F. B. I. Agent, testified that he was present during the entire time that Agent Boyle interviewed the defendant. He did not recall Boyle having made a promise to the defendant that he would get off on a plea of insanity or that Boyle threatened that if the defendant did not confess he would see that the defendant got the electric chair. On cross examination he admitted: in response to questions: 'Q. Do you recall Boyle advising him that if he would go ahead and make a statement, that he would see that was able to enter a plea of insanity in his trial? A. There was some talk of Chatterton saying that he had asked for psychiatric help at one time. Q. And isn't it true that Mr. Boyle told him that if he didn't give a statement and get off on an insanity plea, that Mr. Boyle would see that he burned in the electric chair? A. I don't recall that he said that. Q. You recall some conversation about the electric chair, though, don't you? A. Yes, I do.'

The defendant was interrogated by officers at night on several occasions.

The defendant was found guilty. The exception is to the trial court's judgment overruling his amended motion for new trial, consisting of the general grounds and nineteen special grounds. The general grounds and special grounds 6, 7, 8, 9, 17 and 18 were abandoned.

David L....