Davis v. State
| Decision Date | 09 June 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 20879,20879 |
| Citation | 114 S.E.2d 877,216 Ga. 110 |
| Parties | Leon (Lynn) DAVIS v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where the State makes a prima facie case that a written statement to the arresting officer was freely and voluntarily made by the defendant, it is not error to admit such statement in evidence over the objection, that, 'the proper foundation has not been laid.'
2. The failure of the court to give in charge the provisions of the act of 1952 (Ga.L.1952, p. 205, Code, Ann., § 27-1503) was not error.
3. The verdict is fully supported by the evidence.
J. Neely Peacock, Jr., Albany, Edward T. Hughes, Camilla, for plaintiff in error.
Maston O'Neal, Sol. Gen., Bainbridge, Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Rubye G. Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Leon Davis, under an indictment charging him and three others with the murder of James E. Glenn, by shooting him to death with a pistol, was, on his trial before the court and a jury, found guilty and sentenced to death by electrocution. His motion for new trial on the general grounds and two special grounds was denied. His bill of exceptions assigns error on the denial of his motion.
1. The first special ground assigns error on the admission in evidence of the alleged written confession of the defendant over the objection that 'the proper foundation has not been laid.' The defendant asserts that its admission was 'extremely harmful and prejudicial to movant.'
The brief of evidence discloses that the defendant, shortly after his arrest, made a written statement to the arresting officer, and that such statement was freely and voluntarily made without being induced by any offer of benefit or fear of injury. This was sufficient to make a prima facie case for the admission of the statement in evidence. Booker v. State, 210 Ga. 34(2), 77 S.E.2d 505.
2. The second special ground assigns error on the failure of the court to give in charge to the jury the provision of the act of 1952 (Ga.L.1952, p. 205; Code, Ann., § 27-1503). This statute in substance provides that, when an accused 'shall contend that he was insane or mentally incompetent under the law at the time the act or acts charged against him were committed,' the trial judge shall instruct the jury that, in case of acquittal on such contention, the jury shall specify in their verdict that the accused was acquitted because of mental irresponsibility or insanity at the time of the commission of the act. This ground asserts that 'movant introduced evidence that he was insane at the time of the homicide and that he was mentally incompetent under the laws at the time of the homicide charged against him,' and that it was prejudicial error not to give in charge this statute. The brief of evidence does not support this contention. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitus v. Balkcom
...9 Whitus v. State, 1960, 216 Ga. 284, 116 S.E.2d 205; cert. den'd 1961, 365 U.S. 831, 81 S.Ct. 718, 5 L.Ed.2d 708; Davis v. State, 1960, 216 Ga. 110, 114 S.E.2d 877. 10 The district court held: (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (2) there was no evidence to support t......
-
Whitus v. State of Georgia Whitus v. State of Georgia, s. 650 and 253
...petitioners have been here twice before. They were originally convicted in 1960 and the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed. Davis v. State, 216 Ga. 110, 114 S.E.2d 877; Whitus v. State, 216 Ga. 284, 116 S.E.2d 205, cert. denied, 365 U.S. 831, 81 S.Ct. 718, 5 L.Ed.2d 708 (1961). Thereafter a ......
-
Massey v. State
...a charge on insanity, even without a request to charge, since this constituted the only defense of the defendant. In Davis v. State, 216 Ga. 110, 114 S.E.2d 877, where the contention of insanity was sought to be raised solely by the statement of the defendant, this court made no specific ru......
-
Whitus v. State
...The defendants were indicted, tried, convicted of murder and sentenced to electrocution. The convictions were affirmed in Davis v. State, 216 Ga. 110, 114 S.E.2d 877 and Whitus v. State, 216 Ga. 284, 116 S.E.2d 205, certiorari denied, 365 U.S. 831, 81 S.Ct. 718, 5 L.Ed.2d 708. Applications ......