Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 18 March 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 5774.) |
| Parties | JOHNSON. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Brooks County; W. E. Thomas, Judge.
Will Johnson was convicted of murder, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Branch & Snow, of Quitman, for plaintiff in error.
Clifford E. Hay, Sol. Gen., of Thomasville, Geo. M. Napier, Atty. Gen., and T. R. Gress, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
RUSSELL, C. J. [1] 1. The evidence fully warranted the verdict of guilty in this case, unless the jury believed the testimony in behalf of the defendant and his statement to the effect that he killed the deceased under the fears of a reasonable man that his own life was in immediate danger, and, since the evidence is uncontradicted that he pursued the deceased for a considerable distance, and assaulted him more than once with three different species of weapons, it is no marvel that this theory was not credited by the jury. There is no exception to the charge of the court, and so it must be presumed that the jury were correctly instructed on the law applicable to the case on trial.
2. The only exception, aside from the three usual general grounds contained in the motion for a new trial, is set forth in an amendment to the motion. In this the movant complains that, after the defendant had closed his testimony, the court permitted John A. Gilbert to give certain testimony over the objection that such testimony was not in rebuttal of any testimony offered by the defendant, and the witness was being offered to go over the same ground as that covered by the witness Gardner, and who was in the same room that Gardner was in when they saw the homicide. It is insisted that this testimony was not in rebuttal of any statement made by the defendant to the jury, and was therefore prejudicial and hurtful to the defendant, and contrary to the principles of justice. The judges of the superior court are vested with a wide discretion in permitting the introduction of testimony. The purpose of a trial is to develop and elucidate the truth, and the books are full of cases where the discretion of the trial judge was permitted to be exercised with extreme liberality for that purpose. So, whether the testimony of Gilbert is strictly in rebuttal of the case made in behalf of the defendant or not, we cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in permitting the state to introduce the testimony of Gilbert. Treating the testimony as intrinsically...
To continue reading
Request your trial