Coleman v. State
| Decision Date | 15 May 1914 |
| Docket Number | (No. 347.) |
| Parties | COLEMAN et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Wilcox County; W. F. George, Judge.
J. J. Coleman and another were convicted of murder, and bring error. Affirmed.
Jno. R. Cooper, of Macon, Haygood & Cutts, of Fitzgerald, and D. B. Nicholson, of Rochelle, for plaintiffs in error.
Hal Lawson, of Abbeville, J. W. Dennard, of Cordele, J. B. Wall, Sol. Gen., of Fitzgerald, and Warren Grice, Atty. Gen., for the State.
LUMPKIN, J. W. A. Coleman, Jim Coleman, and W. H. Stevens were idicted for the murder of Leon Melvin. W. A. Coleman was first tried separately and convicted. Jim Coleman and W. H. Stevens were then placed on trial together. They were found guilty with a recommendation to mercy, They moved for a new trial, which was denied, and they excepted.
1. On the trial of W. A. Coleman a panel of 48 jurors was put upon him, from which were selected the 12 who tried him. The remaining 36 were excluded from the courtroom, and heard none of the evidence. After his conviction, the case against the other two defendants was called, and a panel of jurors was put upon them. It did not include the 12 men who tried the previous case; but it included the 36 men who had not been engaged in that case, and who had been excluded from the courtroom. Presumably a full panel was put upon them, which included the 36 jurors mentioned. At any rate, no objection was made to the number of jurors in the panel. Counsel for the defendants challenged the array on the grounds that the whole panel was incompetent. The challenge to the array was properly overruled. If there was any objection to individual members of the panel, this would be a ground for challenge to the polls, not to the array. But we do not mean to imply that there was any ground of challenge either to the polls or to the array. Schnell v. State, 92 Ga. 459, 17 S. E. 966; Brown v. State, 97 Ga. 215, 22 S. E. 403; Bryan v. State, 124 Ga. 79, 52 S. E. 298, and citations; Robinson v. State, 82 Ga. 535 (4), 545, 9 S. E. 528.
It has been repeatedly ruled that the sixth amendment to the Constitution of the United States has no application to trials in state courts. Brantley v. State, 132 Ga. 573 (b), 579, 64 S. E. 676, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 959, 131 Am. St Rep. 218, 16 Ann. Cas. 1203; Eilenbecker v. District Court of Plymouth County, 134 U. S. 31, 10 Sup. Ct. 424, 33 L. Ed. 801. It is equally well settled that there is no merit in the contention that this proceeding was violative of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Rawlins v. Georgia, 201 U. S. 638, 26 Sup. Ct. 560, 50 L. Ed. 899, 5 Ann. Cas. 783; Brantley v. State, supra, and citations.
2. Objection was made to several parts of the evidence which were only admissible either as tending to show a conspiracy, or on the basis of a conspiracy; and error was also assigned on certain charges on the law of conspiracy. It was contended that the evidence was irrelevant, and that there was no sufficient evidence of a conspiracy on which to base its admission or the charges on that subject. After the fact of conspiracy is proved, the declarations of any one one of the conspirators during the pendency of the criminal project and connected therewith are admissible against all. Penal Code 1910, § 1025. While it may generally be the better practice to require a prima facie case of conspiracy first to be made, before admitting evidence of the acts and declarations of one of the alleged conspirators, there is no inflexible rule to that effect. The trial court has some discretion as to the order in which testimony may be introduced; and, if a prima facie case of conspiracy is shown from the whole evidence, the admitting of such testimony is not error. Unless, however, a conspiracy is shown prima facie, such evidence can only operate against the person whose acts and declarations are proved, if he is on trial; or, if he is not on trial, they are not admissible against the defendants being tried, and should be rejected. 8 Cyc. 682. If sufficient prima facie evidence of a conspiracy is introduced to authorize the admitting of evidence of acts and declarations of one of the alleged conspirators, ultimately it is for the jury to determine whether from the whole evidence, a conspiracy has been shown; and, if they find that none has been established, it is then their duty not to consider the acts and declarations of the supposed co-conspirator which has been admitted, except so far as they may affect him, if he is on trial. 3 Enc. Ev. 428. As to the admissibility of the evidence, if a prima faciecase of conspiracy is shown, it does not matter whether the supposed conspirator whose acts or declarations are proved is on trial or not Slaughter v. State, 113 Ga. 284, 288, 38 S. E. 854, 84 Am. St. Rep. 242. A conspiracy may be shown by circumstantial evidence as well as by that which is direct. Weaver v. State, 135 Ga. 317, 69 S. E. 488; Walker v. State, 136 Ga. 126, 70 S. E. 1016; Turner v. State, 138 Ga. 808, 812, 76 S. E. 349.
There was sufficient evidence in this case to authorize the jury to find that there was a conspiracy between the three persons charged with the murder of Leon Melvin, and there was no error either in the admission of evidence or in giving charges on the subject of a conspiracy. There was evidence tending to show the following among other facts: There had been ill feeling between Leon Melvin (the person killed) and the elder Coleman prior to the time of the homicide. The latter testified:
Some person shot into the house of Leon Melvin's father prior to the homicide. On the night before this occurred, the elder Coleman went to the house of the senior Melvin and had a conversation with him; the younger Melvin being present Coleman told young Melvin to go outside and they would settle up right there. The elder Melvin told Coleman to leave, which he did. On the day before the homicide the elder Coleman told a witness that he liked the elder Melvin and had nothing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bibb County v. Hancock
... ... counties having a county treasurer, where, as here, the manifest intention of the legislature was that it should apply in all counties of the State ... 3. (a) The guaranty of due process of the Federal and State constitutions does not apply as against a State in behalf of a ... 81(2), 48 S.Ct. 468, 72 L.Ed. 793; Eilenbecker v. District Court of Plymouth County, 134 U.S. 31, 34, 10 S.Ct. 424, 33 L.Ed. 801; Coleman v. State, 141 Ga. 731(1c), 82 S.E. 228; Lewis v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 162 Ga. 263, 266, 133 S.E. 469. These provisions are in addition ... ...
-
Gunter v. State
... ... (Cits.)" Wortham v. State, 184 Ga. 674, 680, 192 S.E. 720, 723 (1937). Accord, e. g., Knight v. State, 239 Ga. 594, 238 S.E.2d 390 (1977); Coleman v. State, 141 Ga. 731, 82 S.E. 228 (1914) ... In the present case, there was sufficient prima facie evidence of a conspiracy to allow admission of the hearsay testimony of Whitehead concerning declarations made by the other conspirators during the pendency of the criminal ... ...
- Andrews v. State, 14493.
-
Andrews v. State
... ... aside from her credibility, the jury might consider the ... previous unchastity of the female on the question of her ... It is ... a well-established rule of law that a witness may be ... impeached by proof of conviction of a crime involving moral ... turpitude. Coleman v. State, 94 Ga. 85, 21 S.E. 124; ... Killian v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co., 97 Ga. 727(2), ... 25 S.E. 384; Powell v. State, 122 Ga. 571(2), 50 ... S.E. 369; Howard v. State, 144 Ga. 169(2), 86 S.E ... 540; Groves v. State, 175 Ga. 37(3), 164 S.E. 822; ... Whitley v. State, 188 ... ...