Davidson v. State, 17756
Decision Date | 10 March 1952 |
Docket Number | No. 17756,17756 |
Parties | DAVIDSON v. STATE. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict.
2. The law of voluntary manslaughter as related to the doctrine of mutual combat was not involved in this case.
3. A witness, whether expert or not, may, after describing the wound, give his opinion that it caused death.
4. It was not error to admit in evidence the clothing worn by the deceased at the time of the homicide.
5. It was not error to exclude hearsay evidence.
Gus Davidson was charged with the murder of Olin Sands. The evidence on behalf of the State as to what happened at the time of the killing was in substance: On the night of the homicide, the deceased went out to investigate a noise he heard in front of his house, and found that a calf belonging to him had been hit by an automobile. A short distance from his house, near a church, he found the defendant sitting in an automobile with 'the lights knocked out of the front fender of the car.' The evidence for the State was further:
The defendant in his statement said:
On the trial of the case, the jury returned a verdict of guilty without a recommendation to mercy. The defendant filed his motion for new trial, which was amended by the addition of six special grounds. The motion for new trial as amended was overruled. The exception here is to that judgment.
Wright Lipford, Solicitor Gen., Newnan, Wyatt, Morgan & Sumner, LaGrange, Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Hugh C. Carney, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff in error.
James E. Weldon, LaGrange, for defendant in error.
1. It appears from the foregoing statement of facts that there is no merit in the general grounds of the motion for new trial.
2. Special grounds 1 and 2 complain because the judge failed to give to the jury in his charge the law of voluntary manslaughter as related to the doctrine of mutual combat. As will appear from the statement of facts in this case, if the the contention of the State is true, the defendant was guilty of murder. If the contention of the defendant is true, it was justifiable homicide. There was no evidence of any mutual intent to fight. It was, therefore, not error to fail to charge this principle of law. See Smith v. State, 202 Ga. 851(15), 45 S.E.2d 267; Jackson v. State, 201 Ga. 364, 39 S.E.2d 756; Benton v. State, 185 Ga. 254, 194 S.E. 166; and Bivins v. State, 200 Ga. 729, 38 S.E.2d 273.
3. Special ground 3 complains because, over the timely objection of the defendant, the State was allowed to prove by an undertaker that in his opinion the bullets which entered the body of the deceased caused his death. The objection was that the witness was not an expert and could not give his opinion. The witness, before expressing the opinion, gave a detailed statement of how many bullets entered the body, at what place on the body the bullets entered, and the course or range of the bullets, thus giving the facts upon which the opinion was based. 'A nonexpert witness who has...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
A Child's World, Inc. v. Lane
...court did not err in overruling that objection. See McNeal v. State, 228 Ga. 633, 637(7), 187 S.E.2d 271 (1972); Davidson v. State, 208 Ga. 834, 836(5), 69 S.E.2d 757 (1952). When Mr. Edwards was subsequently asked to recount the details of the conversations, no hearsay objection was raised......
-
Burchfield v. Byers
...74 Ga.App. 415(2), 39 S.E.2d 902; Royal Crown Bottling Co. of Gainesville v. Stiles, 82 Ga.App. 254(4), 60 S.E.2d 815; Davidson v. State, 208 Ga. 834, 69 S.E.2d 757, are not applicable since this witness neither qualified as an expert nor was he questioned as to what he saw at the scene fro......
-
Hall v. State
...were used in the slaying by this accused and his coconspirators to rob. Bryan v. State, 206 Ga. 73, 74, 55 S.E.2d 574; Davidson v. State, 208 Ga. 834(4), 69 S.E.2d 757; Johnson v. State, 209 Ga. 333, 72 S.E.2d 291; Williams v. State, 210 Ga. 207(4), 78 S.E.2d 521, supra; Jones v. State, 210......
-
Anglin v. State
...that death could have resulted from either one of such bullet wounds. Fudge v. State, 190 Ga. 340(2), 9 S.E.2d 259; Davidson v. State, 208 Ga. 834(3), 69 S.E.2d 757. 4. In his instruction to the jury as to forms for the verdict, the judge charged: 'Gentlemen, I omitted the most important pa......