Green v. State
| Decision Date | 20 April 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 7990.,7990. |
| Citation | 158 S.E. 285,172 Ga. 635 |
| Parties | GREEN v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Exceptions based upon refusal of the court to give in charge to the jury several requested instructions, not being referred to in the brief or argument in behalf of the plaintiff in error, will be treated as abandoned.
The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the indictment. An indictment for murder is sufficient which alleges that within the jurisdiction of the court a named defendant, on a named date, "did then and there unlawfully, and with malice aforethought, kill and murder one Alexander 'Son' Adams by shooting him in the body with a pistol." Penal Code of 1910, § 954. The grounds of special demurrer, that the indictment fails to allege that Alexander "Son" Adams was a human being, and that the accused was a person of sound memory and discretion, and fails to allege that the pistol was loaded with gunpowder and leaden balls, inflicting a wound by said leaden balls entering the body of the deceased, and causing a mortal wound from which death ensued, are without merit. The statement of the indictment, "by shooting him, the deceased, in the body with a pistol, " is not dubious, ambiguous, or demurrable for absence of an explanation as to "how the pistol entered the body of the deceased, " inasmuch as it is a matter of common knowledge that a statement that one had been shot with a pistol does not imply that the pistol itself entered the body of the person shot. The indictment was sufficient to inform the accused as to the nature of the offense charged against him, and the particular circumstances of the transaction, as to enable him intelligently to defend himself.
Counsel's opening statement should be confined to recital of matters of proof only as are admissible; counsel's opening statement should not refer to anything arousing feeling or prejudicing adversary in eyes of jury in order to deal with matter affecting defense of accused; character of accused is irrelevant unless accused himself puts character in issue; generally evidence of commission of other crimes of similar nature by accused other than charged in indictment is inadmissible; proof of commission of other similar crimes by accused is admissible in proof of motive, design, and intent to corroborate prosecution witnesses; opening statement of solicitor that state would prove robberies by defendant charged with murder, committed after murder for purpose of flight held not reversible error; evidence showing commission of robberies shortly after homicide charged was properly admitted to show defendant's motive to obtain money and escape.
The opening statement of counsel in outlining his side of the case to the jury should be confined to a summary or recitalof such matters of proof only as are admissible under the rules of evidence. Generally any such statement of counsel should not refer to anything that may tend to arouse feeling or to prejudice the cause of the opposite party in the eyes of the jury, in order to deal with any matter which may affect the defense of one accused of crime, such as proof of general bad character of the defendant; for character is a matter which is irrelevant in the trial of a criminal case, unless the defendant himself puts his character in issue. Generally, in a criminal case, evidence as to the commission of other crimes of a similar nature by the accused than that charged in the indictment is inadmissible. However, an exception to this rule is that proof of the commission of other crimes of a similar nature by the accused defendant has been held to be admissible and competent proof of motive, scheme, design, and intent, not only as a matter of necessity for the purpose of disclosing the identity of the defendant, but for the reason such testimony may corroborate the testimony of witnesses for the prosecution. Consequently the court did not err in permitting the solicitor general to make the statement in opening his case to the jury, objected to by the defendant in this case. The court did not err in overruling the objections to the introduction of evidence to show the commission of other crimes shortly after the homicide with which the accused stood charged.
The evidence authorized the verdict, and the judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Error from Superior Court, Richmond County; A. L. Franklin, Judge.
Willie Green, alias Smith, was convicted for murder, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Willie Green, alias Smith, was indicted for murder. He demurred to the indictment on the ground that it failed to charge and set out any offense against him under the laws of Georgia, and on the special grounds that: (1) The indictment fails to allege and set out that Alexander "Son" Adams was a human being, as required by section 60 of the Penal Code defining the crime of murder; (2) it fails to set out and allege that the accused was at the time of the homicide a person of sound memory and discretion, as required by the section just cited; (3) it fails to set out and allege that the pistol was loaded with gunpowder and leaden balls, inflicting a wound by said leaden balls entering the body of the deceased, and causing a mortal wound from which death ensued; (4) it alleges that the accused is guilty of murder "by shooting him, the deceased, in the body with a pistol, " without any explanation whatever as to just how the pistol entered the body of the said deceased; (5) it fails to clearly and sufficiently inform and advise the accused of just the nature of the offense charged against him, and therefore the accused is unable to intelligently defend himself, because of the failure of sufficient information in the said indictment. This demurrer was overruled and error is assigned on that ruling. The accused was convicted. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and he excepted. The original motion as amended contained fifteen grounds. In the brief of the plaintiff in error the only grounds insisted on are: (1) Certain statements made to the jury by the prosecuting attorney in his opening statement; (2) the introduction by the state of witnesses to prove the commission of other separate and distinct offenses; and (3) the testimony of Lieutenant Holley as to other crimes committed by the defendant. The defendant objected to the statements of the solicitor general, and the admission of the testimony of the witnesses as to the other crimes, which objections were overruled.
The statement of the solicitor objected to was as follows: he didn't have any money himself, but he wanted money. He wanted to get back where he came from, up north somewhere, or Maryland somewhere. He went down the street right after this occurrence and robbed a negro man and did take his money from him and did take his watch from him, but that wasn't sufficient; that at the first killing the alarm was given and the police were on his trail after him, trying to arrest him. and while they were hunting for him he was going ahead and performing these acts in, trying to get away from Augusta; not satisfied with this first robbery, he met another negro and covers him with his gun and demands him to 'stick em up, ' and that this negro refused to stick them up and he shot him through and through; that just about that time the officers got on his trail and caught him and arrested him, and he by his own mouth admitted absolutely...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Lovely
...of the motion therefor. Frank v. State, 141 Ga. 243, 80 S.E. 1016; Williams v. State, 152 Ga. 498, 110 S.E. 286; Green v. State, 172 Ga. 635, 639, 640, 158 S.E. 285; Wilson v. State, 173 Ga. 275(6), 160 S.E. 319. Though evidence tending to show the commission of other crimes by the defendan......
-
State v. Erwin
... ... prove upon the trial; nor should he argue the merits of his ... case, or relate the testimony at length. See 64 C. J. 235, ... Sec. 251; State v. Distefano , 70 Utah 586, ... 262 P. 113; People v. Reed , 333 Ill. 397, ... 164 N.E. 847; Green v. State , 172 Ga. 635, ... 158 S.E. 285. The District Attorney went way beyond what was ... proper, in reciting verbatim the conversations which he ... intended to prove, and in giving the details of his evidence ... The opening statement should be a brief outline of the ... evidence, and ... ...
-
Sheppard v. State
... ... of Jones-Stewart-Motor Company, the defendant and a ... "little short fellow" came to the place of business ... of said company, and defendant bought a "nickle-plated ... radiator shell" for $3.50 ... Mrs. J ... D. Lewis testified that on about May 8, 1929, her dark green ... Ford roadster disappeared, and that when she recovered it ... about a month later it was changed in appearance--had "a ... crude black paint job on it," and a new silver-looking ... radiator shell, and that "the lights had globes and ... shades over them, round looking things sticking over ... ...
-
Sheppard v. State
...consideration by a Georgia court is to be found in the case of Frank v. State, 141 Ga. 243, 80 S. E. 1016. See, also, Green v. State, 172 Ga. 635, 640, 158 S. E. 285, 288, where Chief Justice Russell, speaking for the court, said: "That the statements made were, in one sense, most prejudici......