Hunter v. State
| Decision Date | 14 June 1939 |
| Docket Number | 12805. |
| Parties | HUNTER v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Marion Hunter was found guilty, without recommendation, of the murder of J. S. Tillman by beating him with an iron pipe and blunt instrument. The wife and two young daughters of Tillman were found with him in their one-room 'tourist cabin' all killed by bludgeon wounds about their heads. The body of Tom Chester, with a shot gun wound in the head, was found about the same time on the floor of a filling-station, about 80 feet distant. The evidence for the State consisted of a signed confession, and testimony of a similar oral confession and admissions in the presence of several witnesses, that he killed all of these persons; took a shotgun from the cabin of Tillman at the time of the homicides there; committed a burglary of the filling-station and killed the inmate with a shotgun immediately following the Tillman homicides; committed many previous burglaries of other tourist cabins, all within about a mile of the scene of the homicides, all within two or three months and some very recently prior thereto; disposed of the stolen articles; and in one of the burglaries cut the man whom he subsequently shot at the filling-station, and attacked a woman companion at their cabin. The State also introduced testimony as to the finding of the Tillman shotgun in woods within 500 or 600 yards of their cabin on the day after the homicides, together with a hat and coat, identified as having been previously worn by the defendant, the coat containing spots which an expert witness identified from tests as being human blood and testimony as to the breaking of slot-machines at the filling-station on the night of the homicides, and the effort of the defendant two days later to exchange ten or twelve dollars in nickels and dimes for bills, with his statement to the witness that he had 'hit a jack-pot' by a wire trick which he explained to the witness. The State introduced further testimony as to the previous burglaries of the tourist cabins, the taking of articles therefrom, and the defendant's subsequent possession or disposal of these identified articles, besides testimony identifying him as the person who had cut Chester and attacked his companion at one of these cabins. The defendant offered no evidence, but in his statement to the jury he sought to account for his whereabouts on the night of the homicides, and for his possession or familiarity with the location of the stolen articles; stated that his confession and admissions were induced by bodily violence and threats; and denied that he committed the homicides or the burglaries. The officers and witnesses present swore that the defendant had been taken to the scene of the crimes, and that his confessions and admissions had been freely and voluntarily made.
The general grounds of the motion for new trial are neither argued nor insisted upon. All of the 32 special grounds present only the questions (1) whether it was error to permit to stand, over objection, the opening statements of the solicitor to the jury that the State would prove the homicide of Chester at the filling-station on the night that Tillman and his family were killed, and the previous burglaries and cutting of Chester during one of them, as above referred to and (2) whether it was error to admit such evidence as to other offenses, over the objection that they were irrelevant, immaterial, and prejudicial.
Jos. C. Hester and Chas. D. Russell, both of Savannah, for plaintiff in error.
Saml. A. Cann, Sol. Gen., and Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., both of Savannah, Ellis G. Arnall, Atty. Gen., E. J. Clower, Asst. Atty. Gen., and C. E. Gregory, Jr., of Decatur, for the State.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. While the general grounds are neither argued nor insisted upon, since the judgment imposed the death penalty the evidence has been examined and found to fully authorize the verdict.
2. Although it is the general rule that the character or conduct of a party in other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hodges v. State
...the defendant chooses to put his character in issue. Code, §§ 38-201, 202; Green v. State, 172 Ga. 635, 158 S.E. 285; Hunter v. State, 188 Ga. 215, 3 S.E.2d 729; Ward v. State, 14 Ga.App. 110, 80 S.E. 295; Davis v. State, 60 Ga.App. 772, 5 S.E.2d 89. It is equally axiomatic that, where such......
-
Brown v. State, S98A1875.
...relevant and admissible. [Cits.]" (Emphasis supplied.) Wall v. State, 153 Ga. 309(1), 112 S.E. 142 (1922). See also Hunter v. State, 188 Ga. 215, 218(2), 3 S.E.2d 729 (1939). Hence, as long as it is established that the facts on which the motive is assigned was within the knowledge of the d......
-
Emmett v. State
... ... consideration of the circumstances. Was the killing murder, ... or were there circumstances of mitigation or justification? ... While proof of a particular motive is not essential to ... establish the crime of murder, it is always relevant and ... admissible as a circumstance. Hunter v. State, 188 ... Ga. 215, 217(2), 3 S.E.2d 729 ... The ... evidence to which objection was made tended to show a present ... state of mind inclined to theft or larceny; and since it thus ... corroborated the other evidence on the issue as to motive, ... the objections ... ...
-
State v. Jones
...the defendant chooses to put his character in issue. Code, §§ 38-201, 38-202; Green v. State, 172 Ga. 635, 158 S.E. 285; Hunter v. State, 188 Ga. 215, 3 S.E.2d 729. It is universally recognized--and by the Court of Appeals in this case--that 'The general rule is that, on a prosecution for a......