Claybourn v. State
| Decision Date | 26 September 1940 |
| Docket Number | 13442 |
| Citation | 11 S.E.2d 23,190 Ga. 861 |
| Parties | CLAYBOURN v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 15, 1940.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where the evidence shows that confessions were voluntarily made and were not induced by another by hope of reward or fear of punishment, or where it is an issue of fact as to whether the confessions were properly obtained, the defendant is not denied due process of law, as guaranteed by the State and Federal constitutions, by their introduction in evidence against him.
(a) A written document consisting of questions by counsel for defendant and defendant's answers thereto, in which defendant repudiates previous confessions and says they were induced by fear, where there is no proof of the truth or genuineness of such document, has no probative value, and its admission in evidence without objection does not give it probative value.
(b) But if such document had probative value, it and the circumstance that the defendant was carried from place to place by the officers, was questioned numerous times and told that he was lying, and that the officers knew he was guilty would do no more than raise an issue of fact as to whether the confessions were made voluntarily, as the evidence for the State showed, and the verdict of the jury on such issue is final and conclusive.
2. Where the court's charge instructs the jury that the burden is upon the State to prove the material allegations of the indictment, and that the defendant enters upon the trial with the presumption of innocence in his favor, which presumption remains with him until and unless overcome by proof that establishes his guilt to a moral and reasonable certainty and beyond reasonable doubt, it is not subject to the criticism that it lacks clarity as to the burden of proof.
3. Where the evidence shows the defendant guilty of murder or nothing, a charge on voluntary manslaughter is more favorable to the defendant than he is entitled to under the evidence and does not constitute reversible error.
4. Where the charge gives to the jury a correct statement of the law upon the responsibility of a conspirator for acts of co-conspirators, it does not intimate an opinion that a crime has been committed, or that a conspiracy existed, because it refers to crime as 'the crime' and to conspiracy as 'the conspiracy.'
5. The evidence supports the verdict. The confessions are corroborated, and whether the confessions are true or not is for the determination of the jury.
Evidence for the State showed that Dr. Charles H. Lee, rector of Christ Church on St. Simons Island, at Frederica, Georgia, was sitting in the living room of his residence preparing a sermon for the next day at approximately 11 o'clock on the night of February 5, 1938, and that Mrs. Lee was present in the room with him, when a shot was heard near by. Dr. Lee arose and made some effort to discover where the shooting occurred, and then returned to his seat near the window and resumed the preparation of his sermon. Mrs. Lee went upstairs, and after a period of approximately fifteen minutes she heard another shot, and went down to request Dr. Lee to retire. She found him slumped over in his seat, with a bullet wound entering one temple and passing through his head. She summoned the officers and a doctor, but Dr. Lee died without revealing consciousness. The officers inspected the grounds around the Lee residence, and found a man's track near the window where Dr. Lee was sitting. Dr. Lee would discuss very freely general conditions of the community from his pulpit, and he would also go directly to individuals and talk with them in person about their wrongs.
On October 20, 1938, Jimmie Bisson, a policeman of the City of Brunswick, arrested George Claybourn, the defendant, and placed him in the city barracks. Both Bisson and his chief, J. E. Register, questioned the defendant at various times, but never for more than thirty minutes at a time, during the day and night, but never later than 9 o'clock at night, while he was in the barracks from October 20 to October 26. Throughout all of such questioning the defendant maintained that he was innocent of the murder of Dr. Lee and denied having any knowledge of the crime. Bisson told the defendant a number of times that he was lying, and that he knew he was guilty of Killing Dr. Lee. On October 26, the officers took the defendant in an automobile to Baxley, Georgia, where a Mrs. Stevens was met, and she identified the defendant as the man she saw come to the place of business of Mr. Cofer on the night Dr. Lee was killed, and whom she heard state to Cofer that he was ready to do the job; whereupon Cofer gave him a roll of money which Cofer said was $150, and a pistol, and the defendant departed. The defendant stated that he had never seen Mrs. Stevens before. He was carried by the officers from Baxley to Reidsville, and the car was stopped near the State prison building. All occupants of the car except Bisson and the defendant went into the prison building. Bisson stood beside the car and the defendant remained seated in the car. The officer told the defendant that he wanted him to tell him the truth, and the defendant said: The officer asked him what he knew about it; and thereupon the defendant said that Mr. Cofer had talked to him several times about killing Dr. Lee; that at about 11 o'clock on the night that Dr. Lee was killed Mr. Cofer gave defendant a pistol and some money, saving it was $150, and told him to go up the road and kill Dr. Lee; that defendant took the pistol and money and went to Dr. Lee's house and stood around there about thirty minutes, but lost his nerve and couldn't do the job, and that he returned home and carried the pistol back to Mr. Henry Cofer, but didn't give him the money. They returned to Baxley, and the solicitor-general was informed of the statement made by the defendant; whereupon the solicitor-general asked the defendant who killed Dr. Lee, and if he wanted to make a statement. The solicitor told the defendant of the seriousness of admitting that he was guilty, and at great length questioned him as to whether any one had bothered him, or threatened him, or anything else, and told him that he would probably be electrocuted if he committed the crime. The solicitor also told him of the prominence of Dr. Lee, and told him that he might be in danger of mob violence if he admitted his guilt; after which the defendant made a statement to the solicitor-general in the presence of others, without threat against him, without promise of reward, and without any fear of punishment, but freely and voluntarily, the substance of this statement being a complete confession that he was guilty of the murder of Dr. Lee. The defendant was carried to the jail in Wayne County, and a number of confessions and repudiations by him followed. On order of the judge of the circuit he was returned to the county jail at Brunswick.
Two 38 caliber pistol bullets were found in the walls of the house of Dr. Lee. Mrs. Stevens testified on the trial, that on the night of the killing she and her husband were at the place of business of Henry Cofer, that Cofer attempted to hire her husband to kill Dr. Lee, that the defendant came and spoke to Cofer, saying that he was ready to do the job, and Cofer went to the cash register and got a roll of money which he said was $150, and gave the money and a pistol to the defendant and told him to do the job. The defendant introduced a large number of witnesses who gave testimony that in many respects contradicted the State's evidence. It was shown that Mrs. Stevens had a bad criminal record, and that she refused to give any information unless she was paroled from prison where she was serving a sentence, that a parole was procured for her, and that a reward of $1,500 had been offered for evidence to convict the murderer of Dr. Lee. Introduced without objection were a series of questions by defendant's counsel and defendant's answers, comprising nine pages, wherein the defendant stated that he was innocent and that his confessions of guilt had been induced by fear and were untrue. This document contained the certificate of the court reporter to the effect that he transcribed the questions and answers as they appeared in the document. No testimony was introduced to establish its authenticity, or that the answers made were true. The defendant made the following statement on the trial:
A verdict of guilty with a recommendation of mercy was returned; whereupon sentence to life imprisonment was imposed. The defendant filed a motion for new trial, which was amended by several grounds, the first eleven of which were exceptions to the allowance in evidence of the various confessions and incriminating admissions made by the defendant, but all of which were based mainly upon the alleged errors in the first eleven grounds, and a contention that by reason of such errors the defendant was denied due process of law as guaranteed by the Constitution. Grounds 13 and 14 are attacks upon the sufficiency of the evidence and are properly a part of the general grounds. Grounds 15, 16, and 17 complain of excerpts from the charge to the jury.
Farr & Mitchell, of Brunswick (Howard, Tiller & Howard, of Atlanta, on motion for...
To continue reading
Request your trial