Lyon v. The State Of Ga.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1857 |
| Docket Number | No. 1.,1. |
| Citation | 22 Ga. 399 |
| Parties | James A. Lyon, plaintiff in error. vs. The State of Georgia, defendant in error, |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Indictment for an assault with intent to murder, in Washington Superior Court. Tried before Judge Holt, at March Term, 1857.
Robert Cox and James A. Lyon, were jointly indicted for an assault with intent to murder Alexander G. Lawson. Cox failed to appear, and Lyon only was put on trial.
In the course of the trial, defendant's counsel proposed toask two witnesses, one introduced on the part of the State, and the other on the part of the prisoner, "whether or not they had heard Cox acknowledge that he had shot the prosecutor Lawson, at the time and place charged in the indictment." The Court excluded the testimony on the ground that said acknowledgements were not legal evidence in behalf of defendant Lyon.
To which counsel for prisoner excepted..
After the couclusion of the testimony, the counsel for prisoner requested the Court in writing, to charge the jury, "that an actual assault by the person killed upon the person killing may reduce the offense to the grade of manslaughter."
Which" charge the Court refused to give in the language requested, and counsel excepted.
The jury found the defendant guilty: whereupon his counsel moved a rule for a new trial, which the Court refused, and counsel excepted.
H. Williams, and F. S. Bartow, representing Jenkins, for plaintiff in error.
MoLaws, Attorney General, for defendant in error.
By the Court.—McDonald, J., delivering the opinion.
The Court properly rejected the admission of Cox, that "it was he who had shot the prosecutor at the time and place stated in the bill of indictment." There is no sound principle upon which it can be admitted. Though jointly indicted with the defendant on trial, he was not on his trial. This Court has held that a witness jointly indicted with a defendant on his trial is competent, if he be not also on his trial. Jones vs. The State, I Kelley 610. In that case, the parties had severed on the trial. The witness was not a party to the issue to be tried, and upon that ground he was considered competent. Cox is not a party to the issue here, and being acompetent witness, his admissions ought not to have been received. But it is not on that account alone that his admissions ought to have been rejected. He was jointly indicted, and to have admitted his declarations to acquit his accomplice, would be recognizing a principle, which would, in all such cases, subvert the ends of justice. All one defendant would have to do, would be to admit that his guilty accomplice was innocent, and that he himself had perpetrated the crime, absent himself so as to enable the party on his trial to have the benefit of his admisssion, and after his acquittal, appear, demand his trial and prove by the evidence of the acquitted party, that he was in fact the guilty person. It is true that the jury might justly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. State
...the accused was the actual perpetrator are, as a rule, inadmissible. Timberlake v. State, 246 Ga. 488(1), 271 S.E.2d 792 (1980); Lyon v. State, 22 Ga. 399 (1857). Furthermore, although this type of hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible (see Timberlake v. State, supra at (1), 271 S.E.2d......
-
Green v. State
...85 Ga. 69(15), 11 S.E. 814 (1890); Kelly v. State, 82 Ga. 441(2), 9 S.E. 171 (1889); Daniel v. State, 65 Ga. 199(1) (1880); Lyon v. State, 22 Ga. 399(1) (1857). The trial court did not err under the law of this state. The appellant urges that the testimony of Thomas Pasby was admissible as ......
-
Brown v. State
...v. State, 58 Ala. 372; West v. State, 76 Ala. 98; Owensby v. State, 82 Ala. 63, 2 So. 764; Welsh v. State, 96 Ala. 92, 11 So. 450; Lyon v. State, 22 Ga. 399; Moughon v. State, 57 Ga. Davis v. Commonwealth, 95 Ky. 19, 23 S.W. 585, 15 Ky. Law Rep. 396, 44 Am. St. Rep. 201; State v. West, 45 L......
-
James Donnelly v. United States
...State, 76 Ala. 98; Owensby v. State, 82 Ala. 63, 64, 2 So. 764. California: People v. Hall, 94 Cal. 595, 599, 30 Pac. 7. Georgia: Lyon v. State, 22 Ga. 399, 401; Daniel v. State, 65 Ga. 199, 200; Kelly v. State, 82 Ga. 441, 444, 9 S. E. 171; Delk v. State, 99 Ga. 667, 671, 26 S. E. 752; Low......