Licett v. The State Of Ga.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1857 |
| Citation | 23 Ga. 57 |
| Parties | Lemuel LICETT, plaintiff in error. vs. The State of Georgia, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Indictment for Simple Larceny. Tried in Baker Superior Court, before Judge Allen, May Term, 1857.
Lemuel Licett, the defendant below, was indicted for stealing a sorrel filly, the property of Enoch C. Brown.
He was tried at May Term, 1857, of Baker Superior Court, and found guilty.
His counsel moved for a new trial on the following grounds:
1 st. Because the jury found contrary to the evidence.
2d. Because the Court erred in allowing the statements of Isaac Bush and Hardegree to go to the jury as evidence.
3d. Because the Court allowed the confession of prisoner, made at Brown's house, to go to the jury; said confession having been made while he was in the custody of Hardegree, and under the restraint of Brown, Hardegree and Musgrove and others, and made with the hope of procuring his release.
4th. Because the Court erred in charging the jury that possession of stolen goods was evidence of the theft; said charge being upon an assumed state of facts, there being no evidence that the defendant ever had possession of the stolen filly.
5th. Because the Court erred in charging the jury that confessions, although received with great caution, yet when made voluntary, without restraint, and free from fear or hope of reward, are to be regarded as any other evidence, and tohe believed or not according to the truth of the same; and in refusing to charge that the confessions of prisoner were to be received with great caution, and that the jury were bound to regard the whole confession made at the same time; and in charging that they were bound only to believe such portions of the confessions as they believed to be true.
6th. Because the Court erred in allowing the counsel for the State to call Enoch C. Brown back to the stand as a witness, and examine him as to facts before testified to, after he had been examined by the State and turned over to prisoner's counsel, who discharged him without cross examination.
7th. Because the Court erred in not excluding Hester and Scurry, two tales jurors, who had made themselves competent by their answers to the questions prescribed by the Act of 1856, but who had been challenged for cause, and proof submitted, that said jurors, from rumors and what they had heard of the case, had formed and expressed an opinion as to the guilt of the prisoner.
8th. Because the Court erred in refusing the motion to continue the case, made on the ground of the public excitement and prejudice against prisoner, arising from the transactions having recently occurred.
The following is the substance of the brief of evidence filed on the motion for a new trial:
Enoch C. Brown, for the State, testified that about the night of the 24th December last, his horses were out, and on going in search of them, he found his sorrel filly missing. He was not uneasy about her as she was accustomed to run out. About the 20th January, he heard that she had been traded off; he went to where he had heard she was, at Colquitt, in Miller county, and found her in possession of Judge Bush. Bush showed him his filly in the lot with two other sorrel animals about the same age; he recognized his fillyand demanded her of Bush, who refused to deliver her up. He paid Bush fifteen dollars before he could get her, that being the sum which Bush said he had given in a swap for her. They then took the filly and went in pursuit of prisoner; Bush went to get back his horse which he said he had traded to defendant for the filly; they remained together two days and nights, "waiting around"; Bush, after looking round a day or two, went home, and he loaned him the filly and he pursued alone after defendant.
A man by the name of Hardegree brought prisoner and the filly to his house; prisoner rode with Hardegree, and Hardegree said, "here is the man who has confessed taking your filly"; this was said in the presence of prisoner. (Counsel for prisoner was here allowed to examine witness as to the circumstances under which the confessions were made, before they were brought out.) At the time the confessions were made, prisoner was in charge of Hardegree, and witness and Musgrove and another man were present, and they would not have permitted him to go; their intention was to have him bound over; they did not caution him not to confess, nor did they inform him what would be the consequence if he did confess; no threats were made, nor was any reward offered him to make the confession; what he said was voluntary and of his own accord, and prisoner said that his object in making the confession was to clear himself of the charge. Witness was very angry when he saw prisoner, and did at one time threaten to stamp him, but thinks this was after the confession; prisoner was a young man and greatly under the strength of witness, at the time he was under Hardegree's charge.
Counsel for prisoner, after this examination, objected to the confessions being admitted in evidence. The Court overruled the objection; and the witness resuming, testified that prisoner said he traded the filly to Judge Bush, but that he did not steal her, but traded for her; that he traded with Peter Black, and gave Black an account for sixty dollars andhis note for the balance. After this, witness had horses caught to take prisoner to the Sheriff; he objected to riding a mule, said he would walk first; so witness rode the mule and let prisoner ride his filly. The party went to Milford about 10 or 11 o\'clock at night. Mr. Mason was requested to write out a warrant, and when he returned he met the party at the grocery and asked them to get down and drink; prisoner objected and said he had as soon sit; witness objected to his sitting on the horse, and ordered him down, while the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hart v. State, 26152
...the basis of appellate review, either as a ground of a motion for new trial or as a ground of enumerated error on direct appeal. Licett v. State, 23 Ga. 57(1); Evans v. State, 33 Ga. 4(2); Edwards v. State, 224 Ga. 684(1), 164 S.E.2d 120; Robinson v. State, 225 Ga. 167, 169(6), 167 S.E.2d 1......
-
Owens v. State
...give in evidence the confessions of the prisoner, he is entitled to prove all that was said by him in the same conversation. In Licett's Case, 23 Ga. 57, on an indictment for stealing, there was evidence that the prisoner said that he "did not steal the filly" found in his possession, but t......
-
Sims v. State
... ... Ross v ... State, 59 Ga. 248, 249; Hayden v. State, 69 Ga ... 731, 732; Tucker v. State, 180 Ga. 87, 88(4), 178 ... S.E. 152. The same rule would apply to a confession or ... incriminatory statement by the defendant. It might be ... believed in part, or rejected in part. Licett v ... State, 23 Ga. 57; Cook v. State, 114 Ga. 523, ... 40 S.E. 703 ... It is ... not unreasonable to assume that the jury arrived at their ... verdict of guilty by connecting the evidence contained in the ... signed statement of the defendant, that he entered the ... ...
-
Chapman v. State
...in holding the juror competent. And see Turner v. State, 114 Ga. 421, 40 S. E. 308; Galloway v. State, 25 Ga. 596, 599 (2); Licett v. State, 23 Ga. 57. This may be a harsh rule, but it is so well established in this state that we feel constrained to follow the rule already laid down many ti......