Gibson v. State, 8973.

• Decision Date: 16 February 1933
• Docket Number: No. 8973.,8973.
• Parties: GIBSON . v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

176 Ga. 384

168 S.E. 47

GIBSON .

v.STATE.

No. 8973.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 16, 1933.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Error from Superior Court, Sumter County; C. W. Worrill, Judge.

Proceedings by the State against Luther Gibson. To review the judgment, defendant brings error.

Reversed.

R. L. Le Sueur and J. A. Hixon, both of Americus, for plaintiff in error.

Holds Fort, Sol. Gen., of Americus, and Geo. M. Napier, Atty. Gen., and T. R. Gress, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

ATKINSON, Justice.

1. A ground of a motion for new trial should be complete within itself, and the Supreme Court will not look to other portions of the record for the purpose of supplementing it. A ground of a motion for new trial which complains of a refusal to allow the defendant's attorney to ask a named witness specified questions, without stating whether the questions were asked on direct examination or on cross-examination, and, if on direct examination, without stating to the court what the defendant's attorney expected the witness to answer in response to the questions, is too indefinite to present any question for decision, and an assignment of error upon the overruling of such ground of a motion for new trial will not be cause for reversal.

2. The court did not err, as complained of in the second special ground of the motion for new trial, in rejecting evidence offered by the defendant as to statements made by the victim subsequently to the rencounter. The statements were not part of the res gesta¹, and were not shown to have been made in contemplation of death so as to render them admissible as dying declarations.

3. One theory of defense, as gathered from the statement of the defendant before the jury, was the fatal blow was stricken under the fears of a reasonable man that his own life was in danger. It was stated that the deceased drew "his gun on me" with the threat, "I will blow your heart out"; whereupon "I backed off and stumbled over this brick, picked it up, and throwed it. I was expecting to hear the gun shoot every minute." In view of this defense, it was error requiring a reversal to exclude evidence, as complained of in the third special ground of the motion for a new trial, that the deceased "habitually and notoriously carried deadly weapons, " and that this reputation was well known to the defendant. Daniel v. State, 103 Ga. 202, 29 S. E. 767; Baker v. State, 142 Ga. 619-625, 83 S. E. 531; Wilson v. State, 152 Ga. 337, 33S (8),...