Edwards v. State, s. 19845
| Citation | 100 S.E.2d 172,213 Ga. 552 |
| Decision Date | 11 October 1957 |
| Docket Number | 19847,Nos. 19845,s. 19845 |
| Parties | Eddie EDWARDS, Jr. v. The STATE. James Madison BLOUNT v. The STATE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The special grounds, complaining of the ruling allowing a witness to testify relative to a statement made by the accused, because there was no proper foundation showing it was freely and voluntarily made, is needlessly encumbered with an extensive record of direct and cross-examination of the witness too voluminous to be set forth here. But there is evidence expressly stating that the statement was made freely and voluntarily, and in all respects this constitutes a proper foundation for the introduction of the statement. Even if the accused was told that it was better to tell the truth, this would not render the evidence inadmissible. Miller v. State, 94 Ga. 1, 21 S.E. 128; Nix v. State, 149 Ga. 304, 100 S.E. 197; Turner v. State, 203 Ga. 770(1), 48 S.E.2d 522; Downs v. State, 208 Ga. 619, 68 S.E.2d 568. These grounds are without merit.
2. It is clearly shown by the evidence that the homicide was committed in the execution of a prearranged plan to rob, and this was murder. Code, §§ 26-1009, 26-2502, as amended (Ga.L.1957, p. 261); Simmons v. State, 181 Ga. 761, 762(1), 184 S.E. 291; Wright v. State, 186 Ga. 863(2), 199 S.E. 209. The testimony of a witness that the accused approached him on the afternoon before the crime was committed that night, expressing an intention to rob another store and urging the witness to participate, was clearly admissible to prove the state of mind of the accused. Wheeler v. State, 179 Ga. 287, 288(1), 175 S.E. 540; Allen v. State, 201 Ga. 391(1), 40 S.E.2d 144; Biegun v. State, 206 Ga. 618(1), 58 S.E.2d 149; Dorsey v. State, 204 Ga. 345(1), 49 S.E.2d 886. Therefore, the mere fact that the testimony related to another store unrelated to the one robbed did not, as contended by counsel, render the testimony inadmissible.
3. Physical evidence, properly allowed and unobjected to, is a proper matter for the jury to have with it when it is deliberating.
4. The statements made by the accused to the police officers being merely criminal admissions and not a confession, it was error for the court to charge on confession.
James Madison Blount, Eddie Edwards, Jr., and Willie Lee Hall were indicted, tried, and convicted of murder in Hancock Superior Court. The jury made no recommendation of mercy. There were three separate trials, although for the same offense arising out of the same set of circumstances. Each of the defendants filed a separate motion for new trial, which was later amended by adding additional grounds, and each after a hearing thereon, was overruled. The exceptions are to these final judgments.
The evidence submitted at each trial was, in substance, the same except as to the different statements made by the defendants to police officers, who testified as to their contents. In some respects these statements differ slightly as to how the deceased person was struck by them during a robbery of a country store. Although the assignments of error in their motions for new trial are not necessarily the same, many of them are similar and, for this reason, cases 19845, Edwards v. State, and 19847, Blount v. State, are considered together, since both of these motions contain similar exceptions to a charge on confessions. There was no charge on confessions in 19846, Hall v. State, Ga., 100 S.E.2d 176, and it will be considered in a separate opinion.
The alleged crime arose out of a conspiracy by the defendants to rob a store, which had an aged Negro night watchman (the deceased), who lived in the rear of the store. The robbery occurred either late at night or during the early hours of the morning when the deceased was enticed to open the back door of the store and was set upon with fists, stone, and a wooden bar to knock him unconscious so that he would not recognize the thieves. Thereafter, the store was robbed by breaking wooden bars in a door separating the living quarters of the deceased from the main store. One of the statements made by the accused was that the deceased was hit in the head with an ax before they left. Another made the statement that he was still breathing when they departed. None of them stated that the deceased was dead when they left him, although in the Hall case, which contains no charge on confession, the defendant stated that one of the other conspirators told him the following afternoon that 'they had killed that old man.' The owner of the store found him dead the next morning. An expert witness testified that he died from multiple blows to the head with blunt instruments.
Lewis & Rozier, Dickens & Dickens, Sparta, for plaintiff in error.
George D. Lawrence, Sol. Gen., Eatonton, Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Rubye G. Jackson, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
1, 2. Headnotes 1 and 2 require no further elaboration, and hence, will not be further discussed in the opinion.
3. Complaint is made in the amended grounds as to the allowance in evidence, over objection, and the taking and keeping in the jury room of certain articles of evidence while the jury was deliberating. Certain of these exhibits were photographs of the body of the deceased. When the pictures of the body had been allowed in evidence without objection, there was no reason for not allowing them to go out with the jury. This and all of the evidence was proper matter for the jury to have out with it. This case is entirely different from Royals v. State, 208 Ga. 78(2), 65 S.E.2d 158, where the majority opinion held that a written confession was erroneously allowed to go out with the jury. The opinion so ruling expressly placed it upon the ground that the veracity of the one making the statement was involved. There is no issue of veracity about the pictures they portray, not in words but solely by sight as to what they contain.
It might insure a fairer trial to exclude gruesome photographs of a slain person unless they serve a real purpose in proving the material elements of the case. Their introduction when they can serve no purpose but to show a terrible corpse is an excitement of passion against the accused, and the law should not allow a trial for life to be clouded with passion. But once introduced without objection, they are evidence, and the jury is entitled to the exclusive custody of all evidence. Davis v. State, 91 Ga. 167, 17 S.E. 292; Adams v. State, 93...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norrell v. State, 42820
...to establish as a defense that the shots fired by him did not strike the deceased. Thus the main fact is missing. See Edwards v. State, 213 Ga. 552, 555, 100 S.E.2d 172. Moreover, his admissions include statements subject to the construction that he was acting justifiably in shooting in the......
-
Johnson v. State
...(1954); Fields v. State, 211 Ga. 335, 85 S.E.2d 753 (1955); Weatherby v. State, 213 Ga. 188(2), 97 S.E.2d 698 (1957); Edwards v. State, 213 Ga. 552, 100 S.E.2d 172 (1957); Bloodworth v. State, 216 Ga. 572, 118 S.E.2d 374 (1961); Jackson v. State, 225 Ga. 553, 170 S.E.2d 281 (1969); Robinson......
-
Hunter v. State
...and the jury may take all properly introduced demonstrative evidence into the jury room when it retires. See Edwards v. State, 213 Ga. 552(3), 100 S.E.2d 172 (1957); Walker v. State, 216 Ga. 15(3), 114 S.E.2d 431 9. The judge did not err in refusing to charge that the presumption of intoxic......
-
Shaw v. State
...value, we cannot say he abused his discretion. Compare Candler v. Byfield, 160 Ga. 732, 129 S.E. 57 (1925), with Edwards v. State, 213 Ga. 552, 555, 100 S.E.2d 172 (1957), and Avery v. State, 209 Ga. 116, 70 S.E.2d 716 8. Any error in a portion of the closing argument by the special prosecu......