Jester v. State
| Decision Date | 13 November 1941 |
| Docket Number | 13944. |
| Parties | JESTER v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Both the corpus delicti and the perpetration of the alleged offense may be shown by circumstantial as well as direct evidence. In the instant case the evidence, direct and circumstantial, was sufficient to show death of the person alleged to have been killed, and that such death was the result of a wound or wounds inflicted by the defendant.
2. The charge to the jury on the subject of mutual combat was not erroneous for any reason assigned. It is not a good assignment of error, on a portion of the judge's charge which states a correct principle of law applicable to the case, that some other correct and applicable instruction was not given.
3. It is only where a conviction depends wholly on circumstantial evidence that the judge is required to charge the law relating to such evidence, in the absence of a request. In the present case, the allegations of the indictment being supported in part by direct evidence, the omission to charge on circumstantial evidence was not erroneous.
4. A ground of a motion for new trial complaining 'that the court erred in not charging the law of involuntary manslaughter,' but not designating the particular grade of involuntary manslaughter as to which it is contended a charge should have been given, or stating any principle of law that was omitted, is too general and indefinite to raise any question of error for determination.
5. The evidence did not disclose any basis for a charge on the theory of misfortune or accident. If such defense was at all involved, it was presented only by the defendant's statement; and therefore the failure to charge thereon was not error, there being no request.
6. The evidence authorized the verdict convicting the accused of murder. It was not error to refuse a new trial.
Charlie George .jester was indicted for the offense of murder in the alleged killing of James Gay by cutting and stabbing him with a 'knife and other instrument of like kind' on June 15, 1941. He was convicted of that offense, without recommendation, and was sentenced to be electrocuted. His motion for a new trial, consisting of the general grounds and several special grounds added by amendment, was overruled and he excepted.
The evidence pertinent to the contentions raised in this court was substantially as follows:
Mary Hall testified:
It seems that the witness referred to above as Mary Hall, and Willie B. Horton, were husband and wife, or that they lived together and referred to each other as such. Horton, as a witness for the State, testified as follows: 'I know the defendant, Charlie George Jester. I knew James Gay in his lifetime. On Sunday, the 15th of June, this year, Charlie George Jester and James Gay both came to my house. James Gay came there first. He came to my house and into my room. About thirty minutes after James Gay got there, Charlie George Jester came there. When the defendant came there, me and James Gay and my wife were sitting in the front room. Charlie George Jester came to the front door and came on in the hall and to the hall door of my room and called to James Gay and said, 'Come here, Shine, I wants to speak to you a minute,' and he didn't go, and then Charlie George Jester said, Then James Gay said 'That's all right, I will come.' James Gay then went to him and stepped just outside in the hall, about like from here to the table there, from the door, and about that time my wife said, 'They are arguing out there.' I said, 'No, not arguing.' She said 'Yes, they are fixing to have a fight.' My wife started to the door, and I pulled her back, and I went out to ask them would they mind going out the door, if they were going to fight; and James Gay said, 'You are not going to cut me, are you?' Charlie George Jester said, 'Yes, I will cut you.' I said, 'You all go outside,' and Jemes Gay started out the door. James Gay went to turn around, and Charlie George Jester jerked the knife out of his pocket and as he got to the door James Gay reached back and picked up a box and slung it at Charlie George Jester. James Gay was walking back at that time. He was going away from the defendant. It was a little orange box. It looked like one for a little baby to sit on, there on the porch. Charlie George Jester was going on him at the time James Gay pitched the box at him, and was going on James Gay with a knife. James Gay kept backing until he backed off the porch. There is about that much drop off on the porch there, and James Gay fell backwards on the ground. Charlie George Jester followed James Gay on until James Gay fell off the porch backwards. James Gay did not have anything in the way of a weapon. When James Gay fell out on the ground Charlie George Jester stuck him with a knife, * * * with a pocket-knife. It was done so quick I really don't know where he stuck him. I saw the blood coming out. I don't know how many times he stuck him. I got excited about that time is the reason I don't know. I saw James Gay pull the knife out of his stomach, like that. He stuck James Gay in here one time, I know, because I saw James Gay pull the knife out, that is, in here around his heart. * * * My wife, James Gay, and myself were sitting in my bedroom. I did not see Charlie George Jester coming across the railroad. The defendant lived about a block down the street from my house. That would be the way for him to ge home was to pass may house. The defendant came in my house and called James Gay out in the hall. They stayed out in the hall and argued for about three minutes. I knew they were arguing, but I didn't know what they were arguing about. My wife was sitting down in the room with me. She heard them arguing. I did not see the knife when the defendant came in the house. I went out in the hall and told them to get out if they were going to fight, and both agreed to go out and fight. James Gay backed out of the house. He did not walk out with his back to the defendant. James Gay was backing out of the house, and he picked up a box and threw it at Charlie George Jester as he went by it, and then the defendant pulled out a knife. The length of the hall from may door was about six feet. I saw the knife when James Gay started backing out. When I told him to go out of the house to fight they agreed to go out and started out then. I saw the knife at that time. The defendant jerked the knife out, and I said, 'Would you all mind walking out, if you are going to fight?' And as he started out he jerked the knife out. They were out on the ground fighting for about three minutes. I stood there and watched them. I did not attempt to separate them. I had three minutes in which to do it. They fought out there in the yard for about three minutes. I had three minutes to separate them, but I didn't do it, because it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramsey v. State
...to charge some other principle of law. These grounds are without merit. Green v. State, 150 Ga. 121(1), 102 S.E. 813; Jester v. State, 193 Ga. 202(2), 17 S.E.2d 736; Napper v. State, 200 Ga. 626(2), 38 S.E.2d 4. Ground 5 attacks the entire charge of the court as not correctly, completely an......
-
Martin v. State
... ... The body found and ... identified, the throat cut, the fact that there was no sign ... of suicide or accident, are ample to prove the corpus ... delicti.' On the sufficiency of the proof in the present ... case, see Sligh v. State, 171 Ga. 92(3), 108, 154 ... S.E. 799; Jester v. State, 193 Ga. 202, 17 S.E.2d ... 736; Wrisper v. State, supra, and cit. We have reached the ... conclusion, from a careful study of the record, that there ... was sufficient proof to establish the corpus delicti ... Accordingly, we hold this ground of the motion for new trial ... without ... ...
-
Kalb v. State
...a correct principle of law applicable to the case, that some other correct and applicable instruction was not given. Jester v. State, 193 Ga. 202(2), 17 S.E.2d 736. 3. The judge gave to the jury the following charge in reference to flight: "Now it is another contention of the State that aft......
-
Winford v. State, 19735
...respectively, are too indefinite to present any question for consideration. Hines v. State, 204 Ga. 1(2), 48 S.E.2d 680; Jester v. State, 193 Ga. 202, 211 17 S.E.2d 736. 2. Ground 5 contends that the court 'did dwell too extensively on drunkenness within his charge in direct contradiction t......