Hanvey v. The State Of Ga.
| Decision Date | 28 February 1882 |
| Citation | 68 Ga. 612 |
| Parties | Hanvey. vs. The State of Georgia. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Murder. Jurors. Practice in Superior Court. Criminal Law. Before Judge Harris. Carroll Superior Court. October Term, 1881.
Reported in the decision.
Reese & Adamson; T. W. Latham, for plaintiff in error.
H.M. Reid, solicitor general, by brief COBB & Brown; W. P. Cole, for the state.
The plaintiff in error was charged with murder, and found guilty; he submitted a motion for a new trial which was overruled, and that ruling is the error alleged in this case.
1.It is complained that the judge excused a juror whohad been sworn " in chief." The record shows that after he had been accepted and sworn, he presented the certificate of a physician that he was unable to serve; the attention of counsel for the prisoner was called to the fact, who agreed that the judge might hear the juror\'s excuse under oath, which was done, and the juror excused. There was certainly no error in discharging the sick juror, and proceeding with the cause, and especially when prisoner\'s counsel consented to submit the question of the juror\'s condition to the decision of the judge, and before the case was submitted or the panel was complete.
2. The second ground of error alleged is, that the judge refused to charge in substance, that if the defendant used a weapon which he casually obtained, and was drunk at the time, that then the jury could look to his drunkenness to ascertain whether the killing was malicious. There were other grounds of exception arising upon the refusal of the judge to charge upon the subject of drunkenness, as to the effect which it should have upon the finding of the jury. They were all refused by the judge, and properly so under the Code and the decisions of this court. That voluntary drunkenness shall not be an excuse for crime is the written law of this state, and the sooner that it is recognized and observed, the better it will be for all over whom it is to be enforced.
One who voluntarily kills, must meet the demands of justice and of law with some other excuse than that of drunkenness. In the language of Justice Bleckley, in Marshall vs. The State, 59 Ga., 154; "To be too drunk to form the intent to kill, the slayer must be too drunk to form the intent to shoot."
In this case the judge charged the jury that voluntary drunkenness was no excuse for crime, and would not reduce the killing from murder to any lower grade of homicide, but that it was a fact that might be considered, like any other fact, to shed light, if it could do so, upon the transaction. This goes as far as has ever been authorizedby any of the rulings of this court, and is quite as favorable to the accused as any of the more recent decisions would allow.
3.The next assignment of error is, that after the state had closed, and the prisoner had made his statement, witnesses in rebuttal were allowed to testify who had not been "put under the rule, " and who had remained in the court-house during the trial, and this after the defendant's witnesses had been discharged.
Witnesses who have not been "put under the rule" may testify in rebuttal, where the court is satisfied that the ends of justice require it. It will take proper care always to have the witnesses of either party examined out of the hearing of each other upon request, but to exclude any or all who may have happened to be in the court-room pending the trial, and who had not been sworn and put under the rule, would be extending the rule beyond its reason.
Upon the latter branch of the ground, that the defendant's witnesses had been discharged, it is only necessary to say that he offered no testimony whatever, and it does not appear that he had any witnesses; if, however, he did have, and discharged them, knowing that the state had the right to rebut his statement, it was a fault of his own, and not that of the state.
4. The next ground of error assigned is because the court in his charge to the jury used the following language: " If a deadly weapon is used to accomplish the killing, which is likely to produce death when used in the manner the proof shows it was used, the law presumes that the person using it intended to kill."
Taking this sentence by itself, it would doubtless be construed to have reference to the particular case then being tried, and to the proof which had been introduced. But the preceding part of the charge clearly excludes all idea of such construction. The judge had defined murder and was defining malice, and illustrating how...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tucker v. State
...and proceeding until a panel of twelve and two alternates were selected. Ozburn v. State, 87 Ga. 173(1), 13 S.E. 247 (1890); Hanvey v. State, 68 Ga. 612(1) (1882). The supplemental transcript affirmatively shows that Gaines was excused for family illness and not because of any scruples rela......
-
Randolph v. State
...are many other cases which militate against the defendant's contentions. We will call attention to some of them, as follows: Hanvey v. State, 68 Ga. 612, 613 (4); Chelsey v. State, 121 Ga. 340, 344, 49 S.E. 258; Napper v. State, 123 Ga. 571, 572, 51 S.E. 592; Nolly v. State, 124 Ga. 10, 11,......
-
Randolph v. State
... ... one voluntarily shoots at another and the shot kills, the ... homicide can not be involuntary.' Smith v ... State, 73 Ga. 79(3).' There are many other cases ... which militate against the defendant's contentions. We ... will call attention to some of them, as follows: Hanvey v ... State, 68 Ga. 612, 613(4); Chelsey v. State, ... 121 Ga. 340, 344, 49 S.E. 258; Napper v. State, 123 ... Ga. 571, 572, 51 S.E. 592; Nolly v. State, 124 Ga ... 10, 11, 52 S.E. 19; McLeod v. State, 128 Ga. 17, 57 ... S.E. 83; Scott v. State, 132 Ga. 357, 358, 64 S.E ... 272; ... ...
-
Huntsinger v. State
... ... using such weapon to kill, and the intention to kill would be ... rather a question of fact than of presumption.' Thus, ... malice might or might not be implied under the second rule ... stated, depending upon all the facts and circumstances ... connected with the killing. See Hanvey v. State, 68 ... Ga. 612, 613(4) ... The ... rules stated in Delk v. State, supra, had been expressed in ... Austin v. State, supra, as follows: 'The mere fact that a ... person handles a gun in a careless and reckless manner, and ... death results to another therefrom, ... ...