Dumas v. The State Of Ga.

• Citation: 63 Ga. 601
• Parties: Dumas. v. The State of Georgia.
• Decision Date: 30 September 1879
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

63 Ga. 601

Dumas. v. The State of Georgia.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(September Term, 1879.)

Criminal law. Indictment. Evidence. Jury. Charge of Court. Before Judge Simmons. Pike Superior Court. April Term, 1879.

One Childs and Dumas were jointly indicted for murder. They were tried severally. Childs was found guilty, and recommended to the mercy of the court. Dumas was found guilty. He moved for a new trial, on the following, among other grounds:

1. Because the court overruled a demurrer to the indictment based on the ground that there was no allegation that the person killed was in the peace of the state, nor that the defendant was of sound memory and discretion.

2. Because the court allowed a witness for the state to testify, over objection, to the prisoner's statement on a former trial.

3. Because the court held one Maples a competent juror, when it was shown by examining him that he had heard a partof the evidence delivered by one of the witnesses on *a former trial of the case, and that he, with others, had arrested men charged with the same crime, without warrant, and had carried them to Barnesville, where they were released. [The court certified, as to this ground, that the juror answered the statutory questions, and thereby rendered himself competent.]

4. Because, pending the trial, the jury were lodged for the night at the house of one Barrett, whose brother had furnished money and otherwise aided in the prosecution of this case. [Barrett did not keep a public house, but it appears from his affidavit that he was the jailer, and it was the usual custom for juries detained in criminal cases to be lodged at his house; also, that the jury were in charge of a bailiff, and had no communication with him.]

5. Because the court charged that "all admissions should be scanned with care, and confessions of guilt should be received with great caution. A confession alone, uncorroborated by other evidence, will not justify a conviction. [The defendant admitted his presence at the scene of the crime, but denied all participation in it.]

6. Because counsel for the defendant have learned since his trial that one of the jurors had previously stated that "defendant will be hung, of course. I cannot see how they will do otherwise. It would be a disgrace to Pike county if they did not." [This ground was supported by the affidavit of one person, who stated that he heard the above declaration. The juror made a counter-affidavit, denying any recollection of having made such a statement, and denying positively any bias or prejudice.]

7. Because the court allowed a witness, Fox, to testify that defendant admitted having been present at the scene of the crime, over objection of his counsel. [It appeared that after the homicide, defendant and Childs being suspected, a purse was made up and one Bussey sent in pursuit of them. He came upon defendant in a lower county of the state, and, after a chase, captured him. He demanded defendant\'s pistol, and the latter denied...