Cole v. State
| Decision Date | 11 May 1906 |
| Citation | 53 S.E. 958,125 Ga. 276 |
| Parties | COLE. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
On the trial of a defendant indicted for murder, where the evidence showed that, some 10 or 15 minutes after the difficulty between the accused and the deceased was over and the parlies had separated, and one of them had left the place, a witness who had not been present saw the accused and found two knots on his left temple, which the witness rubbed with turpentine, a statement then made by the accused as a narrative of a past transaction, to the effect that the deceased struck him, formed no part of the res gestae, and was properly excluded from the evidence. Dixon v. State, 42 S. E. 357; 116 Ga. 186; Warrick v. State, 53 S. E. 1027, 125 Ga.—.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 14, Cent. Dig. Criminal Law, §§ 808, 816, 817.]
Where a difficulty occurred at night between the accused, and the deceased, and the former struck the latter on the head, from which injury the deceased afterwards died, evidence that, on the morning after such difficulty, the person so stricken stated to the accused and a witness that he himself was to blame for the difficulty, and that he apologized for the way he had treated the accused, was properly rejected; it not appearing that, this was a dying declaration, or was offered in rebuttal of any dying declaration.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 14, Cent. Dig. Criminal Law, § 947.]
The charge of the court having fully explained to the jury the necessity to prove the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to authorize a conviction, it furnished no ground for a new trial that he also stated to them that "the state is bound only to establish his guilt to a reasonable and moral certainty, and if the state has done that, it is your duty to convict the defendant." Taking the entire charge together, there was no error on this subject. Bono v. State, 30 S. E. 845, 102 Ga. 387.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 14, Cent. Dig. Criminal Law, § 1906.]
The evidence authorized the jury to find the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Pulaski County; J. H. Martin, Judge.
Henry Cole was convicted of manslaughter, and brings error. Affirmed.
H. E. Coates and Pate & Turner, for plaintiff in error.
E. D. Graham, Sol. Gen., for the State.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hargraves
...188; vol. 1, Wharton's Crim. Ev. 494; People v. Lane, 100 Cal. 379, 34 P. 856; State v. Stallings, 142 Ala. 112, 38 So. 261; Cole v. State, 125 Ga. 276, 53 S.E. 958.) of flight by the defendant who admits that the fatal bullet came from his gun is useless; and can only be resorted to for th......
-
Ætna Life Ins. Co v. Jones
...App. 127, 91 S.E. 228; supra; Ensley v. Pollard, 56 Ga.App. 884, 194 S.E. 426; Warrick v. State, 125 Ga. 133, 53 S.E. 1027; Cole v. State, 125 Ga. 276, 53 S.E. 958, and Park v. State, 126 Ga. 575, 55 S.E. 489, do not require a reversal of the trial judge on this ground. In those cases the p......
-
Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Jones
...App. 127, 91 S.E. 228; supra; Ensley v. Pollard, 56 Ga.App. 884, 194 S.E. 426; Warrick v. State, 125 Ga. 133, 53 S.E. 1027; Cole v. State, 125 Ga. 276, 53 S.E. 958, and Park v. State, 126 Ga. 575, 55 S.E. 489, to require a reveral of the trial judge on this ground. In those cases the partic......
-
Hetrick v. State
...point of moral certainty, and yet be rendered uncertain by the existence of a doubt of that fact which is reasonable." In Cole v. State, 125 Ga. 276 (3), 53 S. E. 958, Mr. Justice Lumpkin, speaking for the Supreme Court, said: "The charge of the court having fully explained to the jury the ......