Huff v. State
| Decision Date | 25 May 1898 |
| Citation | 30 S.E. 808,104 Ga. 521 |
| Parties | HUFF v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. While fear of future violence to life or member will not justify or excuse a witness for testifying falsely, yet it may afford to the jury sufficient explanation to account for such false testimony. Where a witness, therefore, in the trial of one indicted for murder, admits that he swore differently and falsely at the coroner's inquest about the homicide, and did so because his life was threatened by the defendant if he divulged the truth, and he swore under the belief that bodily harm would be done him unless he testified falsely, it was not error in the court to charge the jury as follows: "The court charges you that if his life was threatened, and he acted under the influence of those threats, believing that his life was in peril, so much so as to be unable to freely give the testimony, and he did swear falsely in consequence of these threats, apprehending danger to himself or his life, then, gentlemen, it is a matter for you to consider whether or not it is a sufficient excuse for you to take his testimony."
2. It was not error for the court to charge on the subject of impeaching witnesses as follows: "While testimony may be submitted for the purpose of impeaching a witness, it does not necessarily destroy his testimony, because it is a matter left with you, after all, to take into consideration, and give it what credit you think it entitled to."
3. There was evidence sufficient in this case to authorize the charge complained of upon the subject of conspiracy.
4. It was not error in the court to refuse to allow a witness to testify that there was an indictment against him pending in the court where the accused was being tried.
5. It is within the discretion of the court to allow the state to reopen its case by the introduction of further testimony after the defendant has closed his case; and this discretion was not abused in the present case.
6. A failure by the court to charge the jury the law upon the subject of impeaching witnesses by proof of contradictory statements is not reversible error, where no request for such charge has been made, and the attention of the court has not been called to the omission.
7. There being a conflict in the testimony as to the newly-discovered evidence tending to show that the jury was not impartial, there was no error in overruling this ground of the motion.
8. As to the guilt of the accused now on trial, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.
Error from superior court, Harris county; W. B. Butt, Judge.
Terrell Huff was convicted of murder, and brings error. Affirmed.
A. A Carson, Grigsby E. Thomas, Jr., B. H. Walton, C. R Winchester, and J. H. Worrill, for plaintiff in error.
S. P Gilbert, Sol. Gen., R. A. Russell, Cameron & Hargitt, and J. M. Terrell, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Edgar Stripling and Terrell Huff were indicted for the murder of William J. Cornett. They were jointly tried, and found guilty, with a recommendation to the mercy of the court; and, their motion for a new trial being overruled, they excepted. Since the case reached this court by writ of error, the defendant Stripling escaped jail, and is now at large. We therefore do not now decide his case. There were various grounds made in the motion for a new trial, many of which evidently related solely to contentions made in behalf of the defendant Stripling, and have no application to the defense set up by the defendant Huff, whose case is now before us for decision. We do not therefore consider in this opinion these grounds in the motion, but only such as relate to Huff's case.
It appears from the record in the case that Cornett was assassinated in his bedroom, about 11 o'clock at night as he was in the act of disrobing for the purpose of retiring to bed. There were evidently two persons that did the killing. The tracks of two persons were traced from the direction of Huff's house to Cornett's. Two shots were fired, one immediately after the other, the reports which witnesses heard indicating that one was a shotgun and the other a rifle or pistol. Two panes of glass were blown out by the shot, one indicating that it was pierced by a bullet, and the other by a number of shot; and two gunshot wounds were found on the body of the deceased. Stripling admitted that he was one of the parties who did the killing, and sought to justify on the ground that the deceased attempted to seduce his sister, had insulted his wife, and had threatened his life. Huff denied that he had anything whatever to do with the homicide. There was no contention in his behalf that he had any excuse or justification to take the life of Cornett. The evidence for the state, as against Huff, showed that he was in company with Stripling on the day of the homicide; that he had previously made threats against the life of Cornett; that he left his house that night in company with Stripling, the two stating to a witness on Stripling's premises that their purpose was to kill Cornett that night; that he acknowledged the next day to the same witness that the work had been accomplished. There was further testimony that Huff sent word to Stripling, who had gone to Columbus, that, if he (Stripling) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Durrett v. Farrar
...the weight and credit to be given the testimony of such witness is a question exclusively for the jury. Code § 38-1805; Huff v. State, 104 Ga. 521, 523(2), 30 S.E. 808.' Did Debra testify truthfully as to not being allowed to let others use the car: and as to whether she gave the keys to an......
-
Benefield v. State
...the one who had told of his participation in it.' Montgomery v. State, 224 Ga. at 848, 165 S.E.2d at 147, supra. See also Huff v. State, 104 Ga. 521(1), 30 S.E. 808; Cameron v. State, 66 Ga.App. 414, 417(3), 18 S.E.2d 16; Walton v. State, 65 Ga.App. 124, 127(6), 15 S.E.2d 455. Enumeration o......
-
Sheppard v. State
...the following well-seasoned and well-reasoned cases: Powell v. State, 101 Ga. 9 (5), 29 S.E. 309, 65 Am.St.Rep. 277; Huff v. State, 104 Ga. 521 (2), 523, 30 S.E. 808; Smith v. State, 109 Ga. 479 (2), 35 S.E. Holston v. So. Ry. Co., 116 Ga. 656, 661, 43 S.E. 29; Elliot v. State, 138 Ga. 23 (......
-
Sheppard v. State
...the following well-seasoned and well-reasoned cases: Powell v. State, 101 Ga. 9 (5), 29 S. E. 309, 65 Am. St. Rep. 277; Huff v. State, 104 Ga. 521 (2), 523, 30 S. E. 808; Smith v. State, 109 Ga. 479 (2), 35 S. E. 59; Holston v. So. Ry. Co., 116 Ga. 656, 661, 43 S. E. 29; Elliot v. State, 13......