Inman v. State
| Decision Date | 08 April 1884 |
| Citation | 72 Ga. 269 |
| Parties | INMAN v. THE STATE OF GEORGIA. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
February Term, 1884.
1. The constitutional right of every person charged with an offence against the laws of this state to be furnished, on demand with a copy of the accusation and a list of the witnesses " on whose testimony the charge against him is founded," entitles the accused to a copy of the indictment and a list of the witnesses who gave testimony before the grand jury; but when he has been furnished with such copy and list, on demand, another witness, whose name was not on the list, is not rendered incompetent to testify on the trial.
2. Where in a criminal case eleven jurors had been procured out of the panel of forty-eight, and there remained but one to be procured and the court asked defendant's counsel if they were willing to take a panel of twelve jurors from those remaining on the list, and select from that panel the remaining juror, to which defendant's counsel replied that they were willing, this was a waiver of the array especially as no demand for the array was made, no cause of challenge to the array was intimated, and no statement was made denying the waiving of the array.
( a. ) This case differs from 62 Ga. 731.
3. It is legitimate for counsel in argument to allude to what has transpired in the case from the time it was called through its entire progress, and the conduct of the party or his counsel in connection therewith is a proper subject for comment. Such matters are necessarily in the discretion of the court, and that discretion will not be controlled except in a case of flagrant abuse; it must appear that the accused has received some positive injury or been denied some material right.
4. Where the state introduced in evidence the sworn statement of the accused before the coroner's jury, it was like all other testimony in the case; it was for the jury to consider and its credit and weight were for them. They were not required to believe it unless contradicted by two witnesses or one witness and corroborating circumstances.
5. That the court charged as follows: was not an expression of opinion by the court as to what had been proved, and does not require a new trial.
6. In regard to the right of the jury to recommend imprisonment for life, the better practice is for the court to call the attention of the jury to the law and merely state to them that, if they think proper, they may, in addition to the verdict of guilty, recommend that defendant be imprisoned in the penitentiary for life. This was substantially done in the present case, and the language of the court was not such as was calculated to deprive, circumscribe or restrict the jury in respect to the exercise of their right of recommendation.
7. The verdict is supported by the evidence, and the presiding judge being satisfied with the finding, we will not interfere.
Criminal Law. Practice in Superior Court. Jurors. Charge of Court. Evidence. Before Judge CARSWELL. Emanuel Superior Court. November Term, 1883.
To the report contained in the decision, it is only necessary to add the following:
Alfred Inman was indicted for the murder of his wife, Mary J. Inman. It is unnecessary to set out the conflicting and voluminous evidence in detail. It is sufficient to state that the evidence on which the state relied for a conviction was, in brief, as follows: In the forenoon of February 16, 1883 defendant rode up to the house of one Bishop, and asked his assistance, stating that his mare had run away with his wife and thrown her, nearly killing her. He then rode back, and one or two persons followed him to the place where the corpse was. He preceded them slightly, and when they arrived, they found him bending over her, calling her by name. A conveyance was brought, and the body placed in it and carried to the house. The defendant stated that a pine burr had fallen on the mare which his wife was riding; that the mare had jumped and run away, and his wife had been thrown and dragged by her feet, which were hung in the stirrup leathers; that the plow-line, which served as reins, had caught on a small stump, and the mare had run round it kicking; that he ran up, stopped her and freed his wife, who was not then dead, and he had laid her down and gone for assistance. Some of the parties who received this information looked over the ground the same day and only a short time after the death; a coroner's jury were empanelled and held an inquest on the next day, and the grounds and surroundings were thoroughly examined. The place where the body was found was in a patch of woods, about half way between the house of Inman and that of Bishop, and about half a mile from each. The body, when first seen by others than the husband, lay on its face, and under the head, in a slight indentation in the ground, was a little pool of blood; a few feet away, at the base of a tree, were found spots of blood, as though spattered there. The head of the deceased was some ten feet from the stump where the defendant said the reins caught, and her feet were towards it. The stump showed no signs of being rubbed by a rope or reins; there was loose bark on it, which one of those inspecting it took off by merely passing his hand over the surface. No horse tracks were found circling about the stump nor anywhere around it, except in the pathway which ran past, and which was three or four feet from it, and these appeared to have been made by a horse going at a slow gait, and not in a run. A few feet from the dead body was found a small lightwood knot, and a little farther off, a larger knot or a portion of a limb. On both of these there were blood and hair. The wounds on the corpse were on the upper portion of the head, where the skull was broken in. There were lesser wounds on the sides or front portion of the head, and on the hands, which were severely wounded. No scratch or bruise was found about the feet, legs or other portion of the body, nor was the clothing of the deceased torn or soiled, nor was it disarranged to any considerable extent when the first witnesses reached the scene of the death. A search was made for the place where the pine knots came from. The larger one had a moist side with dirt on it, and a hole or " bed" in the ground was found some feet away, into which it fitted exactly. There was also an old lightwood log near by, which had upon it an identation, as though a knot had been recently taken from it. Into this the smaller knot was fitted, and it was found to correspond therewith. One of the knots was fitted into the wounds on the head of the deceased, and the indentations in the head corresponded with the protuberances on the knot. A short time before this, the deceased had received several hundred dollars for some property. When the body was being prepared for burial, the pockets of her dress were found turned inside out. A gold necklace, which she habitually wore, was gone and could not be found. In preparing to buy a coffin, defendant told one of the witnesses to look about the house for money, as he had none; this was done, but the sum which she had recently received was not found On the coroner's inquest, defendant was made a witness, and admitted the presence of himself and wife alone at the time of her death. He stated that he could not account for the lightwood knots, nor could he account for his wife's pockets being turned wrong-side outwards, unless she so turned them while hunting for her snuff, which he said she had been doing just before her death. Otherwise, he accounted for the death in the same general manner as that in which he stated it on the day previous. When the neighbors went to the place where it occurred, after the death of Mrs. Inman, a witness noticed certain small spots of blood on the clothes of defendant, but thought nothing of it at the time, as it was supposed that he had handled the body of his wife, and that it might in that way have got on him.
The evidence for the defendant went to show circumstances to confirm the position that the death was caused by the runaway horse.
The jury found the defendant guilty. He moved for a new trial, on the grounds set out in the decision, which was overruled, and he excepted.
J. S. HOOK; H. D. D. TWIGGS; HINES & ROGERS, for plaintiff in error.
C. ANDERSON, attorney general; R. L. GAMBLE, Jr., solicitor general, for the state.
The plaintiff in error was indicted in the superior court of Emanuel county for the murder of his wife, Mary Inman; he was tried and convicted. He made a motion for new trial on several grounds, which were overruled by the court, and to this ruling, refusing the new trial, the defendant excepted, and now here assigns as error the refusal by the court to grant the new trial prayed for.
(1.) The first error assigned is, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial