Harvey v. State
| Citation | 70 S.E. 141,8 Ga.App. 660 |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1911 |
| Docket Number | (No. 2,757.) |
| Parties | HARVEY. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Proof of a confession, when corroborated alone by evidence of the corpus delicti, will authorize a conviction in a criminal case, and the amount of corroboration necessary to support the conviction is in every case a question of fact for the jury. But even if incriminatory admissions, supplemented by other circumstances, be equivalent to a confession, the evidence that the accused confessed the commission of an offense would not be sufficient to authorize a conviction, unless all of the facts essential to establish that the alleged offense was in fact committed are satisfactorily proved.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1227-1229; Dec. Dig. §§ 538, 741.*]
That the trial judge, mentally anticipating that the defendant's counsel intended to make a motion to direct a verdict for the defendant, and that it was for that reason that counsel had preferred a request that the jury be retired, thereupon stated in the presence of the jury "I know what your motion is, and overrule it, " affords no ground for new trial.
(a) The remark of the judge was not violative of the provisions of section 4334 of the Civil Code of 1895, by reason of the fact that it intimated an opinion upon the evidence; for counsel had not stated what motion he intended to make.
(b) In no case can one who makes a motion for the court to direct a verdict complain that the court overrules the motion. It is never error to refuse to direct a verdict.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1524-1533; Dec. Dig. §§ 656, 753.*]
In a criminal case, where the guilt of the defendant is dependent wholly on circumstantial evidence, the jury should be instructed that, if the proved facts are consistent with innocence, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal. Riley v. State, 1 Ga. App. 651, 57 S. E. 1031. In a case in which all of the evidence is circumstantial, a request is not necessary to invoke this instruction. Weaver v. State, 135 Ga. —, 69 S. E. 488.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1883-1888, 1922, 1960, 1999; Dec. Dig. §§ 784, 824.*]
To authorize the conviction of one charged with aiding a prisoner to escape, in violation of section 313 of the Penal Code of 1895, the evidence must establish the fact that the prisoner was in the act of escaping, and that the person charged with aiding the escape knowingly assisted the prisoner to escape.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Escape, Cent. Dig. § 6; Dec. Dig. § 5.*]
Error from Superior Court, Worth County; Frank Park, Judge.
Henry Harvey was convicted of crime, and he brings error. Reversed.
Perry & Foy, for plaintiff in error.
W. E....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sutton v. State
... ... Davis ... v. State, 105 Ga. 808, 809, 32 S.E. 158 (3); Allen ... v. State, 8 Ga.App. 90, 68 S.E. 558; Westbrook v ... State, 91 Ga. 11, 16 S.E. 100; Wimberly v ... State, 105 Ga. 188, 31 S.E. 162 (1); Owen v ... State, 119 Ga. 304, 46 S.E. 433 (2); Harvey v ... State, 8 Ga.App. 660, 70 S.E. 141 (1) ... In this ... case it appears that the defendant made repeated confessions ... of guilt to different parties, and there was evidence tending ... to show that such confessions were freely and voluntarily ... made, and were not ... ...
-
Sutton v. State
...Ga. 11, 16 S. E. 100; Wimberly v. State, 305 Ga. 188, 31 S. E. 162 (1); Owen v. State, 119 Ga. 304, 46 S. E. 433 (2); Harvey v. State, 8 Ga. App. 660, 70 S. E. 141 (1). In this case it appears that the defendant made repeated confessions of guilt to different parties, and there was evidence......
-
Smith v. State
...evidence, even if the conviction can be properly said to rest even in part upon this character of evidence. Harvey v. State, 8 Ga. App. 660, 70 S. E. 141. The trial was free from prejudicial error. Judgment ...
- Harvey v. State