Joiner v. State
| Decision Date | 13 October 1898 |
| Citation | 106 Ga. 646,31 S.E. 556 |
| Parties | JOINER . v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Criminal Law—Instructions—Harmless Error —Murder—Evidence.
1. It is proper for the court, in the trial of a case where the evidence is both direct and circumstantial, to define to the jury each class of evidence, and explain the difference between them.
2. That some of the instructions embraced in the charge of the court to the jury in a criminal case were not warranted by the evidence will not be held cause for a new trial, when it is apparent that these instructions tended to benefit, and could not in any event have resulted in injury to, the accused.
3. That the court, after stating to the jury an important contention of the accused, did not in that immediate connection inform them what effect should be given to this contention if found true, is not cause for a new trial, when, from other instructions and in the very nature of things, it is palpably apparent that the jury could not have failed to understand that, if this contention was established, they should acquit the accused.
4. Mere failure to charge concerning the impeachment of witnesses will not require a new trial when the attention of the court was not called to this subject, and there was no request to charge thereon.
5. The evidence fully warranted the verdict, and the record discloses no good reason for setting it aside.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Bibb county; W. H. Felton, Jr., Judge.
Harry L. Joiner was convicted of murder, and brings error. Affirmed.
John R. Cooper, for plaintiff in error.
Roland Ellis, Robt. Hodges, Sol. Gen., and J. M. Terrell, Atty. Gen., for the State.
On the trial of Joiner, who was indicted for murder, and found guilty, with a recommendation that he be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for life, the court, in its charge to the jury, gave to them a correct definition of direct evidence, and explained to them the difference between it and circumstantial evidence, and also gave them instructions upon the law of voluntary manslaughter and justifiable homicide. These things are complained of in the motion for a new trial filed by the accused, which alleges that the evidence was entirely circumstantial, and that it contained nothing warranting the instructions just mentioned. The motion also alleges that the court erred in stating to the jury that the accused, denied the killing, or that he had anything to do with it, without further instructing them that, if this contention were true, they ought to acquit the accused. It is further insisted in the motion that the court erred in not instructing the jury that a witness can be impeached by proving contradictory statements, and that, when a witness has contradicted himself, it would be a question for the jury whether he should be believed or not
1. This was not a case of purely circumstantial evidence. Much of the testimony was direct and positive, and much of it was circumstantial. It follows, therefore, that the first ground of alleged error, as above set...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Cuthbert v. State
-
State v. Reed
...even in that the problem as here presented is but very briefly noticed; it, however, supports the conclusion we here reach. Joiner v. State, 105 Ga. 646, 31 S.E. 556. It further contended that the trial court erred to the prejudice of appellant in giving its instruction No. 6, reading in pa......
- Cuthbert v. State