Kennedy v. State

• Decision Date: 11 June 1897
• Parties: KENNEDY v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

28 S.E. 979

101 Ga. 559

KENNEDY v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

June 11, 1897

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A perfect and complete showing for a continuance on the ground of the absence of a witness ought not to have been disregarded, and the continuance denied, merely because it appeared, by way of a counter showing, that the witness, a married woman, had, in effect, stated to another that she knew nothing about the case, and had failed to communicate to her husband any knowledge on her part as to the facts involved.

2. There was no error, in the trial of a criminal case, in refusing to admit evidence offered to show that "defendant had an opportunity to escape jail, in a general jail delivery, about one month before his trial, but did not avail himself of the opportunity to escape;" such evidence being of no probative value in shedding light upon the question of his guilt or innocence of the crime with which he stood charged.

3. The charges complained of in the motion for a new trial were substantially correct.

Error from superior court, Madison county; S. Reese, Judge.

T. L Kennedy was convicted of a crime. From a refusal to grant his motion for a new trial, he brings error. Reversed.

S. P Tribble and H. C. Tuck, for plaintiff in error.

R. H Lewis, Sol. Gen., for the State.

LUMPKIN P.J.

1. The accused made a showing for a continuance which complied with every requirement of the statute. The ground of it was the absence of a female witness by whom he expected to prove matters tending strongly to establish the defense upon which he relied. By way of a counter showing on the part of the state, it was made to appear that this witness had stated to another, in effect, that she knew nothing about the case. It was shown further that she had failed to communicate to her husband any knowledge on her part as to the facts in controversy. It was argued from these circumstances that the accused could not prove by this witness, were she present the facts set up in his showing for a continuance, as being what he expected to prove by her. The trial judge seems to have been of the opinion that the counter showing made by the state established this woman's ignorance of the transaction under review, and that, therefore, her absence could not be injurious to the accused. In this view we cannot concur. See Horn v. State, 62 Ga. 362. Whether a witness does or does not know anything about a case is not...