Doyle v. State
| Decision Date | 23 November 1886 |
| Citation | 77 Ga. 513 |
| Parties | DOYLE v. THE STATE OF GEORGIA. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
October Term, 1886.
1. Counts for felonies cannot be joined in the same indictment with others for misdemeanors, especially where the offences are of different characters.
( a. ) Robbery is not of the same character of offence as larceny from the person, or cheating and swindling. Robbery involves force; the others do not.
2. Where the defendant in a criminal case exercises his right of making a statement not under oath, such statement may be contradicted by testimony as to the facts which it narrates but the making of a statement does not alone authorize the introduction of testimony of the general bad character of the defendant, and that the witnesses testifying concerning it would not believe him on oath.
3. The testimony in this case showed that the defendant filched money from the person of the prosecutor before his eyes, by artifice and trickery, but there was no such evidence of force as authorized a conviction of robbery.
( a. ) Legislation on this subject suggested.
Criminal Law. Evidence. Practice in Superior Court. Before Judge RONEY. Richmond Superior Court. October Term, 1885.
Leven Doyle was indicted and found guilty of robbery. The evidence of the person charged to have been robbed was, in brief, as follows: He agreed to treat the defendant to a drink, and took out his pocket-book to pay for it. He had the book in one hand and in the other a rubber strap which he took from around it. In the book was a $5 bill with one end sticking out. The defendant extracted it with a quick jerk and passed it to a confederate, who made off with it. There was no scuffle and no threats. The defendant merely snatched or jerked the money from the book.
In his statement, the defendant claimed to have won the money from the owner at three card monte.
After conviction, the defendant moved for a new trial, which was refused, and he excepted. The other facts are sufficiently stated in the decision.
S. F WEBB, for plaintiff in error.
BOYKIN WRIGHT, solicitor-general, for the State
Doyle was indicted, tried and found guilty of robbery and was sentenced to the penitentiary for ten years. The indictment charged him, in three separate counts, with robbery, with larceny from the person of the prosecutor, and with cheating and swindling. The amount alleged to have been stolen was five dollars in United States currency. Upon his arraignment and before pleading to the merits, he demurred specially to the indictment, upon the ground that there was a misjoinder of offences in the different counts in the indictment, one being for a felony and the others for misdemeanors; the demurrer was overruled, and upon the trial, he made a statement not under oath, which the court, over his objections, allowed to be impeached, by evidence of his bad character, and that from that character he was not, in the opinion of the witnesses, entitled to credit on his oath in a court of justice. He made a motion for a new trial, on several grounds, including those above mentioned, which was refused. To the judgment on this motion he excepted, and these exceptions make the questions to be decided.
1. Counts for felonies cannot be joined in the same indictment with others for misdemeanors, although it would seem all the offences charged are ejusdem generis, but in this case the offences set forth in the several counts were not of kindred character; the secret and furtive taking of money from the person of another without his knowledge or consent and the deceitful means and artful practices resorted to by swindlers to cheat and defraud others, are just the reverse of the force or intimidation, which is an indispensable element of robbery. Code, §§4389, 4410, 4412, 4595, and citations under each of these sections. This court, in Speer's case, 60 Ga. 381, held that a conviction of fornication upon an indictment for rape could not be upheld,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. State
...her defense. The accused is not under oath. The statement is not the foundation for impeachment by showing general bad character. Doyle v. The State, 77 Ga. 513; Vaughn v. The State, 88 Ga. 731, 735, 16 S.E. 64. The defendant incurs no penalty for not speaking the truth. Poppell v. The Stat......
-
Perue v. State
...159, 89 So. 826, 827; Longsine v. State, 105 Neb. 428, 181 N.W. 175; Davis v. State, 57 Ga. 66; Hilderbrand v. State, 5 Mo. 548; Doyle v. State, 77 Ga. 513; Gilbert v. State, 65 Ga. 449; James State, 104 Ala. 20, 16 So. 94; Scott v. Comm., 55 Va. 687, 14 Gratt. 687; Storrs v. State, 3 Mo. 9......
-
Underwood v. State
...(proving abusive words not charged.) But bad character of prisoner, and that witness would not believe him on oath, not admissible. Doyle v. State, 77 Ga. 513. (4) Argument: Right of conclusion not lost by making statement. Farrow v. State, 48 Ga. 30; Seyden v. State, 78 Ga. 105. But eviden......
-
Webb v. State, 9532.
...felony." See, also, in this connection, Hoskins v. State, 11 Ga. 92; Williams v. State, 72 Ga. 180; Gilbert v. State, 65 Ga. 449; Doyle v. State, 77 Ga. 513; Sutton v. State, 124 Ga. 815, 53 S. E. 381, and cit. Under the facts stated in the question, all of the offenses charged in the indic......