McKibben v. State
Citation | 2 S.E.2d 101,187 Ga. 651 |
Decision Date | 18 February 1939 |
Docket Number | 12651. |
Parties | McKIBBEN v. STATE. |
Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
Rehearing Denied March 9, 1939.
Claude V. Driver, of Bremen, for plaintiff in error.
Hal C. Hutchens, Sol. Gen., of Dallas, M. J. Yeomans, Atty. Gen and Duke Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. On the issue of identity, under the testimony of a witness who positively identified the defendant on trial as having been present and participating with the other two jointly indicted defendants in an armed robbery, and other testimony as to the similarity of his appearance to the person seen as a participant, the verdict of guilty was authorized. See Laminack v. State, Ga.Sup., 2 S.E.2d 99, this day decided, with different special grounds, but with similar evidence against a separately tried co-defendant as to the crime and identification.
2. Under testimony describing one of the pistols used in the robbery, and the bills taken from the victims as having been torn and folded in a particular way, and testimony that they appeared to be the same or similar in appearance to those offered in evidence, the court did not err in admitting these articles for the consideration of the jury, over the objection that they had not been sufficiently identified. See Lively v. State, 178 Ga. 693(3), 694, 173 S.E. 836; King v. State, 166 Ga. 10(7, 8), 13, 142 S.E. 160; Dill v. State, 106 Ga. 683(3), 686, 32 S.E. 660.
3. On Saturday afternoon, after the jury had deliberated for about forty-eight hours, the judge sent for them, inquired of the foreman as to the chance of their reaching a verdict, and stated that as the next day was Sunday and the court could not then receive a verdict, he would let them consider the case until midnight, and they should then cease to deliberate until midnight Sunday night; that he would ask them to retire and make every effort to reach a verdict, and if they did so before midnight, he would return and receive it, and it was his duty to give them every opportunity to arrive at a verdict. About an hour later, the court called for the defendant and his counsel, carried them into the jury-room and instructed the jury as follows: The defendant excepted to the quoted instruction on the ground that it tended to weaken members of the jury in contending for a verdict according to their honest convictions, and to make a compromise in their verdict; and on the additional ground that the giving of this instruction in the jury-room, with no one present but the trial judge, the defendant, and his counsel, being a part of the trial, but not being in the court-room, was not a 'public' trial, as required by the constitution, art. 1, sec. 1, par. 5 (Code, § 2-105). Under the circumstances stated, the quoted language was not subject to the first ground of attack. See Yancy v. State, 173 Ga. 685(5), 689, 160 S.E. 867; Gambo v. F. M. Dugas & Son, 145 Ga. 614(3), 89 S.E. 679, and cit.; Patterson v. State, 122 Ga. 587(6), 591, 50 S.E. 489. The latter ground is without merit. It was not made to appear that when the judge gave the instruction in the jury-room, probably for the convenience of the jury, and with both the defendant and his counsel present, such...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mckibben v. State
...101187 Ga. 651McKIBBEN.v.STATE.No. 12651.Supreme Court of Georgia.Feb. 18, 1939.[2 S.E.2d 101] Rehearing Denied March 9, 1939. Error from Superior Court, Haralson County; J. R. Hutcheson, Judge. Jay McKibben was convicted for armed robbery, and he brings error. Affirmed. Claude V. Driver, o......