Martin v. State, 24211
| Decision Date | 05 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 24211,24211 |
| Citation | 157 S.E.2d 458,223 Ga. 649 |
| Parties | Ulysses S. MARTIN, Jr. v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The evidence was ample to authorize the verdict finding the appellant guilty of murder.
2. The two grounds of the motion for new trial based upon the argument of the State's attorney before the jury were not meritorious.
3. There was no abuse of discretion in refusing to permit the appellant's counsel to assist him while he gave an unsworn statement.
4. Failure to charge, without request, that the indictment was not evidence and should not be considered as evidence was not erroneous.
5. The charge on presumption of innocence was not insufficient or confusing.
6. Failure to charge, without request, on the defense of insanity was not error.
7. It was not error to fail to charge on the law of admissions.
Stanley H. Nylen, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Sol. Gen., J. Walter LeCraw, J. Roger Thompson, Amber W. Anderson, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Marion O. Gordon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Joel C. Williams, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.
Convicted and sentenced for murder, Ulysses S. Martin, Jr., has appealed to this court. He was indicted by the grand jury of Fulton County and tried in the superior court of that county for the slaying of his wife Ethel Mae Martin. The jury's verdict of guilty was without a recommendation of mercy, and he was therefore sentenced to be electrocuted.
His appeal complains of the denial of his motion for new trial, the refusal to permit his counsel to assist him while making an unsworn statement, the charge to the jury of a specified principle, and the failure to charge certain other principles.
1. The general grounds of the motion for new trial are clearly without merit. According to several witnesses for the State, the appellant, without any provocation whatever, inflicted successive stab wounds upon the victim, causing her death. The evidence was ample to sustain the verdict.
2. The other grounds of the motion relate to a portion of the closing argument to the jury by the State's counsel. Referring to the present Vietnam conflict, he compared the appellant with the Viet Cong, saying that the possibility of his some day returning to society would be a greater damage than the threat of world communism and the Viet Cong. Appellant's counsel objected to such argument, whereupon the judge stated to the jury that 'the jury will remember the evidence.' No motion for mistrial was made.
These grounds contend that the argument was improper and was made for the sole purpose of inflaming the minds of the jury and prejudicing them against the appellant; and also that the judge's statement to the jury was insufficient, in view of the evidence and the pending Vietnam conflict, and that he should have instructed the jury to disregard the remarks. However, from the uncontradicted evidence, it appeared that this was a brutal slaying by a husband of a defenseless wife, accomplished by repeatedly stabbing her with a knife, with a four and one-half inch blade, while she was trying to crawl away. The language objected to was a permissible inference from the evidence and its logic was for the jury to determine. It did not introduce, by way of argument, facts not in the record. See in this connection, Code § 81-1009; Milam v. State, 108 Ga. 29, 31, 33 S.E. 818; Taylor v. State, 121 Ga. 348, 354, 49 S.E. 303; Patterson v. State, 124 Ga. 408, 409, 52 S.E. 534.
3. The appellant urges that the court abused its discretion in refusing to permit his counsel to assist him in making an unsworn statement to the jury by calling matters to his attention and refreshing his memory if he forgot anything. In requesting such permission, his counsel stated to the court that appellant was not in a condition to make a statement of his own. Upon refusal of the court, the appellant testified as a witness under oath. He contends that the record amply shows his mental condition and his need for his counsel's assistance while making a statement. On the other hand, there was sufficient showing, including the examination of appellant while a witness, of his ability to make an unsworn statement without assistance of his counsel. This court in Williams v. State, 220 Ga. 766, 769, 141 S.E.2d 436, reaffirmed the rule, long of force in this state, that an accused's counsel Here, there was no abuse of discretion. See also, Jarrard v. State, 206 Ga. 112(7), 55 S.E.2d 706.
4. Also claimed as error is the judge's failure to charge the jury, without request, that the indictment was not evidence and should not be considered as evidence. The appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Braithwaite v. State
...v. State, 262 Ga. 293, 297, 417 S.E.2d 130 (1992); see Pace v. State, 271 Ga. 829, 841, 524 S.E.2d 490 (1999). 40. Martin v. State, 223 Ga. 649, 650, 157 S.E.2d 458 (1967). 41. Miller v. State, 226 Ga. 730, 731, 177 S.E.2d 253 (1970), vacated on other grounds, 229 Ga. 731, 194 S.E.2d 410 (1......
-
Prescott v. State
...for review." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Pinson , 266 Ga. App. at 259 (3) (b), 596 S.E.2d 734 ; see also Martin v. State , 223 Ga. 649, 653 (7), 157 S.E.2d 458 (1967). 7. Next, Prescott argues that the trial court erred by allowing the State "to make statements of prejudicial matter......
-
Williams v. State
...anti-patriotic and anti-military sentiments" that the defendant was prejudiced thereby, and find no reversible error. Martin v. State, 223 Ga. 649(2), 157 S.E.2d 458 (1967). The district attorney's argument is an obvious overstatement and its factual incorrectness is readily apparent to any......
-
Hart v. State, 26152
...S.E. 29; Miller v. Coleman, 213 Ga. 125, 129-130(6), 97 S.E.2d 313; Wheeler v. State, 220 Ga. 535, 537, 140 S.E.2d 258; Martin v. State, 223 Ga. 649, 650, 157 S.E.2d 458; Holley v. State, 225 Ga. 768, 770, 171 S.E.2d 528. The 9th and 10th grounds of enumerated error are without 4. Grounds 1......