Jordan v. State

• Decision Date: 27 March 1908
• Citation: 130 Ga. 406,60 S.E. 1063
• Parties: JORDAN . v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

60 S.E. 1063

130 Ga. 406

JORDAN .

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

March 27, 1908.

1. Criminal Law—Instructions—"Reasonable Doubt."

An instruction is not erroneous which defines a reasonable doubt as one arising out of the case, either from the want, weakness, insufficiency, or conflict in testimony, and which leaves the mind of an honest juror wavering and in doubt as to the guilt of the accused, a doubt which is not a mere conjecture, but one for which the jury can assign a reason, from having heard the whole case.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 14, Criminal Law, §§ 1904-1922.

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol.. 7, pp. 5958-5072; vol. 8, p. 7779.]

2. Same.

Having charged as to the weight which might be given to the prisoner's statement, it was not necessary, in defining a reasonable doubt, for the judge further to say that it might arise from the defendant's statement.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 14, Criminal Law, §§ 1921, 1922.]

3. Same—Writ of Error—Harmless Error-Instructions.

In connection with a charge on the credibility of witnesses, an instruction that the jury should observe their demeanor and conduct in the delivery of their testimony, and take into consideration, if such appears from the testimony, the relationship, bias, or prejudice of any witness, is not ground for a new trial because the court used the word "should, " instead of "may."

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 14, Criminal Law, §§ 1889-1894.]

4. Same—Instructions—Good Character.

A charge on the subject of character, that "it is contended that evidence has been introduced that shows the defendant to be a man of good character. I charge you that evidence of good character may be taken into consideration by you, not only in passing upon the guilt or innocence of the defendant, but also as to whether or not such character may of itself be sufficient to generate a doubt in the minds of the jury as to the guilt of the accused"—is not open to the criticism that the prefatory statement, that it was contended that evidence as to good character had been introduced, tended to impair and destroy the force and value of the evidence relating to the good character of the defendant.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 14, Criminal Law, §§ 1838-1845.]

5. Same.

The court having fully and accurately instructed the jury on the law touching the pris-oner's statement, a charge that the jury get the facts from the witness stand, and from no other source, when considered in its context, did not restrict the jury to the testimony and eliminate from their consideration the prisoner's statement in reaching a verdict.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 14, Criminal Law, §§ 1990-1995.]

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Washington County; B. T. Rawlings, Judge.

Zack Jordan was convicted of murder, and he brings error. Affirmed.

Hardwick, Wright & Hyman, for plaintiff in error.

Hines & Jordan, Alf Herrington, Sol. Gen., and Jno. C. Hart, Atty. Gen., for the State.

EVANS, P. J. Zack Jordan was convicted of the murder of Albert Brown, with a recommendation of life imprisonment. The court refused a new trial, and he excepts.

1, 2. Several of his grounds relate to the court's instruction on reasonable doubt, complaining that the definition of a reasonable doubt was inaccurate, and especially erroneous because the court omitted to inform the jury that a reasonable doubt might arise from the prisoner's statement. The court charged the jury on the weight which might be given to the prisoner's statement. The court's definition of a reasonable doubt is substantially given in the syllabus; and is not erroneous because he characterized such a doubt as one for which a reason can be assigned. Vann v. State, 83 Ga. 45, 9 S. E. 945; Fletcher v. State, 90 Ga. 468, 17 S. E. 100. Nor was it error to fail to charge in immediate connection with such definition that a reasonable doubt may arise from the prisoner's statement. Walker v. State, 118 Ga. 34, 44 S. E. 850.

3. The credibility of a witness is a matter to be determined by the jury under proper instructions from the court. Pen. Code 1895, § 1028. The manner and conduct of a witness while delivering his testimony, his bias, hostility, or relationship, if shown to exist, are legitimate matters for consideration by the jury in deciding what credit should be given to his testimony, and the court may so instruct the jury. The criticism that the judge in his instruction on this subject ought to have said that the jury "may, " instead of "should, " take these matters into consideration, savors more of verbal nicety in expression than of substantial error of law.

4. The court delivered the charge as to good character which appears in the syllabus. The criticism is unmerited. The prefatory remark of the court was not calculated to reflect on the defendant's evidence as to his good character, and we are satisfied no such inference was made by the jury.

5. After instructing the jury on the law applicable to the case and defining the issues, the court used this language: "All of these are questions of fact for you to determine gentlemen, under the evidence as you...