Hawkins v. The State Of Ga.
| Decision Date | 31 March 1858 |
| Citation | 25 Ga. 207 |
| Parties | Newton S. Hawkins, plaintiff in error. vs. The State of Georgia, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Murder, from Gordon county. Tried before Judge Trippe, September Term, 1857.
The plaintiff in error was tried and convicted in the Court below of the murder of Absalom W. Scott. The facts of the case, as appeared by the evidence, were as follows:
Hawkins and Scott were gambling in a crib in the yard, when some altercation ensued, which ended in a fight; Hawkins got out of the crib and gathered up some rocks or brickbats; Scott told Hawkins to lay down the rocks and he would come out; Hawkins laid them down, but Scott remained in the crib; Hawkins then took a stick and went up to the door of the crib and struck at Scott, and "punched" at Scott with the stick through the cracks of the crib; Hawkins then took some rocks and threw them at Scott in the crib; after throwing the rocks, Hawkins left the yard and went to his house, some 250 yards off; Scott said that Hawkins was too mean to live in the county, and that he intended to kill him; just as Scott said this, Hawkins was coming towards him, and was about 24 steps from him; Hawkins had a horse pistol in his hand, and when he came within about 10 feet of Scott, he raised it and shot him; the shot took effect in the left breast of Scott, who fell dead, moving only three or four steps. The witnesses stated their belief that Hawkins was sufficiently near to hear the threat of Scott to kill him.
Defendan's counsel proposed to ask two of the witnesses whether, from the conduct, countenance and language of the deceased, immediately preceding the homicide, they (the witnesses) believed the deceased intended to kill the accused. On each occasion the Court refused to allow the question to be put, to which refusals the defendant's counsel excepted.
The cause being closed, the Court charged the jury, (inter alia), "that if they (the jury) should find, that between the provocation given and the killing, there was sufficient time for the voice of reason and humanity to have resumed her sway, whether in this case she had done so or not, the killing was murder, and not manslaughter." To which charge defendant's counsel excepted.
The jury found the defendant guilty of murder.
Defendant\'s counsel moved for a new trial, on the ground of error in the rulings and charge above excepted to. This motion the Court refused, and the defendant\'s counsel filed his bill of exceptions, assigning the same as error.
Walker & Francis, for plaintiff in error.
Sol.-Gen. Longstreet, for the State.
By the Court.—Lumpkin, J., delivering the opinion.
It seems in this case that prisoner and deceased were gambling in a crib; a quarrel and fight took place; Hawkins came out and threw stones or brick-bats at Scott, and punched him through the cracks of the crib. The last stone thrown was supposed to have hit Scott, as he did not speak afterwards. Hawkins then left for his house, saying he would be back in a little while; Scott came out, and was standing with the witness Baldwin, when Hawkins returned with two horseman's pistols in his hands, loaded with buckshot; when he got within 23 or 24 steps of Scott, Scott remarked that Hawkins was too mean to live and that he intended to kill him; witness does not know whether Hawkins heard this remark, but thinks he might have heard it; Hawkins fired and killed Scott, eight of the shot taking effect; and upon this testimony he was found guilty of murder by the jury.
A new trial was moved for on two grounds. First, because the Court refused to allow defendant's counsel to ask the witnesses, who were present at the killing, whether, from the conduct, countenance and language of the deceased, immediately preceding the homicide, they believed deceased intended to kill the accused. Second, because the Court charged the jury, that if they should find that between the provocation given and the killing, there was sufficient time for thevoice of humanity to have been heard, and reason to have resumed her sway, whether in this case the fact was so or not, the killing was murder, and not manslaughter.
The application was refused, and to reverse this judgment this writ of error is prosecuted.
Was the Court right in refusing to allow the witnesses to testify as to their belief, as to what was the purpose and intention of Scott?
In Hudgins vs. The State, 2 Kelly's Rep. 173, this Court held, that the opinion of a witness, as to the intention of the deceased in approaching the slayer, is not admissible. The same rule is laid down in the case of The State vs. Scott, 4 Iredell's Law Rep. 409. The Court say, "the belief that a person designs to kill me, will not prevent my killing him from being murder, unless he is making some attempt to execute his design; or at least, is in an apparent situation to do so; and thereby reasonably induces me to think that he intends to do it immediately."
Here, there was certainly no such purpose in the mind of the deceased, as he had no weapon of any sort. Prisoner must have known that Scott was unarmed. The witnesses were not asked, if they thought that Scott intended to kill Hawkins at the time of the homicide? To such a question there could have been but one answer.
As to the charge of the Court, it was in the terms and language of the Code. See 4 Division, Section 7, Cobb's Digest, 783-4. Provocation by threats will not be sufficient to free the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Street v. State
...crimes such as aircraft hi-jacking, murder, armed robbery, rape . . .' and, 'In one of our very famous cases, Hawkins versus the State, 25 Ga. 207, may it please the Court, the language used by the learned Justice says: 'Human life is sacrificed at this day, throughout the land, with more i......
-
Nelson v. Nagle
...issue. Potts, 734 F.2d at 536. In Drake, this court found that the prosecutor's closing argument, quoting from Eberhart and Hawkins v. State, 25 Ga. 207 (1858) and attributing the Eberhart quote to "the Justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia," mandated a reversal of the district court's de......
-
Hardy v. State
...assigns error by reason of the fact that the prosecuting attorney was allowed to read to the court dicta from the case of Hawkins v. State, 25 Ga. 207 (1858) prior to his argument to the jury on sentencing. It is contended that this resulted in the imposition of the death penalty under the ......
-
Presnell v. Zant, 90-8770
...to the jury included the Eberhart passage and a passage from another nineteenth century opinion by the Georgia Supreme Court, Hawkins v. State, 25 Ga. 207 (1858). The prosecutor attributed the Eberhart quote to "the Justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia," Drake, 762 F.2d at 1458, and the ......