Gardner v. State
| Citation | 17 S.E. 86,90 Ga. 310 |
| Parties | GARDNER v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 26 March 1892 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Upon the assumption that the deceased was a man of the most desperate character for violence, the homicide, under the facts in evidence, (there being no conflicting evidence,) would be murder, because there was nothing to reduce it to the grade of manslaughter, and nothing to excite the fears of a reasonable man that the prisoner, at the time he inflicted the mortal wound, was in immediate danger of any injury at the hands of the deceased. This being so, the rejection of evidence offered to show that the deceased had a bad character for violence is no cause for a new trial. When such evidence is admissible at all, it is for the purpose of throwing light on the guilt or innocence of the accused. When not admissible for that purpose, it cannot be received to guide the jury in recommending or forbearing to recommend as to the punishment. On this question the case of Fields v State, 47 Ala. 603, is disapproved.
2. Although within a few hours before the time of the homicide the deceased threatened to take the prisoner's life, of which threat the prisoner had knowledge, and although only a few moments before he was slain the deceased was in the public street, armed with a pistol, and approaching the prisoner with the probable purpose of executing his threats yet if, while he was struggling with another person who had arrested him, and was endeavoring to take the pistol away from him, the prisoner, seeing the struggle in progress voluntarily ran up and shot the deceased while the latter was engaged with the third person, and not in a situation to make any direct attack upon the prisoner, and if, after being wounded, the deceased abandoned his pistol, and fled from the street into a house, and the prisoner pursued him, and in the house inflicted the mortal wound by shooting again without any apparent necessity, the bad character of the deceased for violence would afford no substantial aid to the jury in deciding whether the prisoner acted from malice or from a bona fide motive of self-preservation.
3. The facts of the case not being such as fairly to raise any question of manslaughter, it was not error for the court to decline to charge the jury on that grade of homicide.
4. The opinion of a witness as to what the deceased intended to do with a pistol for the possession of which he was struggling with a third person is not competent evidence.
5. The evidence warranted the verdict, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Error from superior court, Glynn county; S. R. Atkinson, Judge.
Candus Gardner was convicted of murder, and brings error. Affirmed.
Harris & Sparks and Dessau & Bartlett, for plaintiff in error.
W. G. Brantley, Sol. Gen., W. A. Little, Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. H. Lumpkin, for the State.
Where it appears that, at the time of a homicide, not only was accused in no immediate danger of any injury, but that there was nothing to excite the fears of a reasonable man that any such danger existed, evidence that deceased was a desperate character is inadmissible.
1. In Doyal v. State, 70 Ga. 147-149, this court recognized the doctrine that the character of the deceased for violence is admissible in evidence only where it is shown prima facie that the accused had been assailed, and was honestly seeking to defend himself. In addition to the authorities on the subject cited by Hall, J., in that case see 1 Horr. & T. Cas. Self-Def. 618-696. In the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Collins
...involved under the evidence that the bad character of the deceased as to peaceableness is competent. Whart.Crim.Ev., § 68; Gardner v. State (90 Ga. 310, 17 S.E. 86), 35 Am.St.R. 202 and mote. Even when one threatened another, it was held that the dangerous character of the deceased was not ......
-
United States v. Peterson
...note 39, 170 U.S. at 509, 18 S.Ct. 689; Gourko v. United States, 153 U.S. 183, 191, 14 S.Ct. 806, 38 L.Ed. 680 (1894); Gardner v. State, 90 Ga. 310, 17 S.E. 86, 87 (1892); Bailey v. Commonwealth, 15 Ky.Law Rep. 826, 25 S.W. 883, 884, (1894); State v. Shippey, 10 Minn. 223, 88 Am.Dec. 72, 73......
-
Cone v. State
... ... the deceased for violence would not have been admissible, ... since there was no evidence to show that the deceased was the ... assailant and that the defendant was seeking to defend ... himself. Doyal v. State, 70 Ga. 134(5a); Drake ... v. State, 75 Ga. 413(3), 415; Gardner v. State, ... 90 Ga. 310, 17 S.E. 86, 35 Am.St.Rep. 202; Barnett ... v. [193 Ga. 432] State, 136 Ga. 65(5), 70 S.E ... 868; Futch v. State, 137 Ga. 75(5), 72 S.E. 911; ... Crawley v. State, 137 Ga. 777(2), 74 S.E. 537; ... Brooks v. State, 150 Ga. 732(3), 105 S.E. 362; ... ...
-
Cohen v. Hartlage, 71958
...v. State, 157 Ga.App. 37, 38(1), 276 S.E.2d 94 (1981), usually opinion evidence as to one's motives or intent is not. Gardner v. State, 90 Ga. 310(4), 17 S.E. 86 (1892); Isley v. Little, 219 Ga. 23, 27(5), 131 S.E.2d 623 (1963). "Intent is something which exists in the human mind and can be......