Jones v. State, 18338
| Decision Date | 13 October 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 18338,18338 |
| Citation | 78 S.E.2d 18,210 Ga. 94 |
| Parties | JONES v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
A. T. Walden, Frank A. Bowers, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
John J. Flynt, Jr., Sol. Gen., Griffin, Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Rubye G. Jackson, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. The plaintiff in error was convicted of murder without a recommendation to mercy. The jury was authorized to find that the plaintiff in error freely and voluntarily made a confession in which he stated that he and Charlie Lewis King killed the deceased, he beating the deceased on the head with an ax and King with a piece of pipe; that they killed him in order to obtain food from the place of business where the deceased worked and was killed; that, after they killed the deceased, they carried him down to the woods and buried the body; that the confession was corroborated by the facts that an ax was found in the place of business where the deceased was killed, with blood on it; that a piece of iron pipe was found in the place; that the body was wrapped in a blanket in the manner in which the defendant had stated they wrapped it; that on the person of King when he was arrested was found a pocketbook belonging to the deceased and sales slips from the place of businesss where the deceased was killed. This being true, it follows, of course, there is no merit in the general grounds of the motion for new trial.
2. The first special ground complains because of the admission, over timely objection, of the confession of an alleged joint defendant or conspirator. There is no merit in this ground for the reason that the statement of the joint defendant was made in the presence of the plaintiff in error and corroborated the statement he himself had made. See Gunter v. State, 19 Ga.App. 772, 92 S.E. 314.
3. The second special ground complains because of the admission in evidence of an ax. There had been evidence to the effect that the plaintiff in error had admitted striking the deceased with an ax; that the ax offered in evidence was found in the place of business where the deceased was killed shortly after the crime was committed; and that there was blood on the ax. It was clearly not error to admit the ax in evidence.
4. The third special ground complains because the trial judge charged the jury the law of conspiracy. Since we have ruled that there was an admissible confession, and since the evidence disclosed that the plaintiff in error and King had planned the night before the crime was committed to go to the place of business of the deceased and request credit, and if they were refused, to 'get food,' it follows there was no error in charging the law of conspiracy.
5. The fourth special ground complains because of the admission in evidence of a piece of iron pipe. This was not error, for the reason that the plaintiff in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramsey v. State
...to fail to charge the law of circumstantial evidence in the absence of a request, when there is direct evidence in a case, Jones v. State, 210 Ga. 94(7), 78 S.E.2d 18; Wise v. State, 209 Ga. 115(1), 70 S.E.2d 598; Green v. State, 210 Ga. 745(2), 82 S.E.2d 703; but when direct and circumstan......
-
Hall v. State
...69 S.E.2d 757; Johnson v. State, 209 Ga. 333, 72 S.E.2d 291; Williams v. State, 210 Ga. 207(4), 78 S.E.2d 521, supra; Jones v. State, 210 Ga. 94(3), 78 S.E.2d 18. 6. Nor was it error to allow the articles referred to in headnote 5 to go out with the jury. The jury is entitled to have out wi......
-
Looney v. State
...which the Burnetts testified. The trial court properly excluded this testimony. Appellant relies on the rationale of Jones v. State, 210 Ga. 94(2), 78 S.E.2d 18, 19 (1953), in contending the testimony of Thomas and Christy should have been permitted in its own right. Appellant misconstrues ......
-
Creel v. State
...made in the presence of the plaintiff in error, which corroborated the statement she herself had made, was not error. Jones v. State, 210 Ga. 94(2), 78 S.E.2d 18. 4. Special ground 4 excepts to the refusal to give a written request to charge the law of accident as embraced in Code § 26-404 ......