Lingerfelt v. State
| Decision Date | 22 March 1906 |
| Citation | 125 Ga. 4,53 S.E. 803 |
| Parties | LINGERFELT. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
One ground of the motion for a new trial assigned error because the court said to a witness in the presence of the jury: It does not appear what question the Solicitor General had propounded to which this statement had reference, and the ground is not sufficiently clear to furnish reason for a reversal. If the court referred to the effort to identify a certain piece of cloth, which the witness had seen some time previously and stated he could not be absolutely sure was the same, the question of identity was necessarily one of opinion.
The fact that a person accused of a crime and placed under arrest made no attempt to escape cannot be proved by him in his own behalf. Kennedy v. State, 28 S. E. 979, 101 Ga. 559; Dixon v. State, 42 S. E. 357, 116 Ga. 186; Williams v. State, 51 S. E. 322, 123 Ga. 138; Com. v. Hersey, 2 Allen (Mass) 173; Campbell v. State, 23 Ala. 46; People v. Rath-bun, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 509; People v. Montgomery, 53 Cal. 577; Wharton's Crim. Ev. § 752; Abbott's Trial Briefs, Crim. Causes (2d Ed.) p. 462, § 520, par. 149; 4 Elliott, Ev. § 2724. Compare 1 Wigmore, Ev. § 293, and note; Pinkard v. State, 30 Ga. 757; Boston v. State, 20 S. E. 98, 21 S. E. 603, 94 Ga. 590 ().
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 14, Cent. Dig. Criminal Law, § 931.]
What was said in Jesse v. State, 20 Ga. 156, to the effect that the fact that a person accused of a crime did not fly is but equivocal evidence of his innocence, was in reference to a charge, and not a ruling on the admissibility of such evidence.
Where the court charged that if the jury should find the defendant guilty generally he would be subject to confinement in the penitentiary for a time not less than two years nor longer than ten years, that they would have the right to reduce the punishment to that appropriate to a misdemeanor, that "if the judge should approve that he would be punished for a misdemeanor, " and that the form of verdict proper for that purpose would be to find the defendant guilty and recommend that he be punished for a misdemeanor, in the absence of any request to charge more specifically on the subject, there was no error in failing to explain to the jury that in the event they should find the defendant guilty, and with the recommendation referred to, the judge could disregard such recommendation and punish him for a felony.
The verdict was supported by the evidence.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Lumpkin...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moyers v. State
...showing that the accused did not flee after the homicide, although he had full opportunity of flight." See also Lingerfelt v. State, 125 Ga. 4 (2), 53 S.E. 803, 5 Ann.Cas. 310; Dunn v. State, 13 Ga. App. 682 (3), 79 S.E. 764. 5. In special ground five movant avers, alleges and complains tha......
-
Moyers v. State
... ... v. State, 135 Ga. 221 (3), 69 S.E. 171, it was said: ... "The court did not err in excluding evidence offered for ... the purpose of showing that the accused did not flee after ... the homicide, although he had [61 Ga.App. 325] full ... opportunity of flight." See also Lingerfelt v ... State, 125 Ga. 4 (2), 53 S.E. 803, 5 Ann.Cas. 310; ... Dunn v. State, 13 Ga.App. 682 (3), 79 S.E. 764 ... 5. In ... special ground five movant avers, alleges and complains that ... the judge erred in instructing the jury as follows: "Now ... gentlemen you have ... ...
-
Hall v. State
... ... time, he was justified in the act." It has been held by ... this court that, "The fact that a person accused of a ... crime and placed under arrest made no attempt to escape ... cannot be proved by him in his own behalf." ... Lingerfelt v. State, 125 Ga. 4, 53 S.E. 803, 5 ... Ann.Cas. 310. It follows that the court did not err in ... refusing to charge as requested ... 6. The ... eighth ground of the motion complains of the refusal of the ... court to give the following instruction to the jury: ... "Where ... ...
-
Slappey v. State
...declarations, whether made before or after the time of the commission of the alleged offense." See also Lingerfelt v. State, 125 Ga. 4(2), 53 S.E. 803, 5 Ann. Cas. 310, and cit. In Register v. State, 10 Ga.App. 623(2), 74 S.E. 429, this court made the following ruling: "The fact that a pers......