Johnson v. State, 17929
| Decision Date | 02 September 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 17929,17929 |
| Citation | 72 S.E.2d 291,209 Ga. 333 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
J. Pierce Anderson, George L. Jackson, Gray, for plaintiff in error.
C. S. Baldwin, Jr., Sol.-Gen., Milledgeville, Eugene Cook, Atty.-Gen., Rubye G. Jackson, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
Horace Johnson was tried and convicted of murder without a recommendation to mercy. He filed his motion for new trial, which was duly overruled. To this judgment the defendant excepted. Held:
1. In so far as the general grounds of the motion for new trial are concerned, it is necessary to say only that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.
2. Special ground four complains because the court refused to disqualify a juror to whom movant objected. The juror as to whom objection was made, upon the voir dire examination, was asked the following question: 'Have you, from having seen the crime committed, or having heard any of the testimony delivered on oath, formed and expressed any opinion in regard to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner at the bar?' The juror replied that, although he had not seen the crime committed nor had he heard any of the testimony delivered under oath, he had expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner at the bar. The movant objected and moved that the juror be disqualified. The court directed that the rest of the voir dire questions be asked. The juror qualified on the rest of the questions. The court then ruled that the juror was qualified. To this ruling, the movant objected. Wilburn v. State, 141 Ga. 510, 511(3), 81 S.E. 444. See also cases there cited. There is no merit in this ground of the motion for new trial.
3. Special ground five complains because the court admitted in evidence, over objection, a written confession made and signed by the defendant. The objection was that the State had not shown the circumstances surrounding the confession, and that the confession was not freely and voluntarily made. There is no merit in this ground of the motion for new trial. The circumstances surrounding the confession were testified to in detail and show that the confession was made freely and voluntarily. It was not error to admit it in evidence.
4. Special ground six complains because a coat allegedly worn by the deceased at the time of her death was admitted in evidence over timely objection. The objection was that the coat had not been properly identified. There is no merit in this contention. The coat was positively identified as the one worn by the deceased on the night of the homicide, and it was not error to admit it in evidence. See Davidson v. State, 208 Ga. 834, 69 S.E.2d 757, and cases there cited.
5. Ground seven complains because the court admitted, over timely objection, a photograph of the sole of a left shoe which was allegedly worn by the defendant on the night of the homicide. The objection was that the shoe itself, which had already been admitted in evidence, was the highest and best evidence. This ground is too indefinite and incomplete to raise any question for decision by this court. It is not shown wherein or how the admission of this evidence, whether or not erroneous, could in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...denial of the challenge for cause of these two jurors. See Hughes v. State, 161 Ga.App. 824, 825(3), 288 S.E.2d 916; Johnson v. State, 209 Ga. 333(2), 334, 72 S.E.2d 291; Grant v. State, 160 Ga.App. 837, 840-842(4), 287 S.E.2d 5. Defendant next contends it was error to allow into evidence o......
-
McCluskey v. American Oil Co.
...Ga. 408 (1) (52 SE 534); Withrow v. State, 136 Ga. 337 (3) (71 SE 139); Powell v. State, 179 Ga. 401, 411 (176 SE 29); Johnson v. State, 209 Ga. 333 (6) (72 SE2d 291); Radcliff v. State, 220 Ga. 169, 171 (137 SE2d 654); Wheeler v. State, 220 Ga. 535, 537 (140 SE2d 258); Hill v. State, 221 G......
-
Barreto v. State, 45693
...motion will not be disturbed unless there is an abuse of discretion. Manchester v. State, 171 Ga. 121, 132, 155 S.E. 11; Johnson v. State, 209 Ga. 333(6), 72 S.E.2d 291; Shelly v. State, 107 Ga.App. 736(4), 131 S.E.2d 135. Taking into consideration that the state is allowed wide latitude on......
-
Clemon v. State, 21940
...444. See also Code § 59-806; Williams v. State, 177 Ga. 391(4), 170 S.E. 281; Rouse v. State, 183 Ga. 551, 188 S.E. 904; Johnson v. State, 209 Ga. 333(2), 72 S.E.2d 291; and Morgan v. State, 211 Ga. 172, 175, 84 S.E.2d 365. In the Williams case, supra, it was unanimously said: 'That a juror......