McKuhen v. State
| Decision Date | 07 July 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 20904,20904 |
| Parties | R. C. McKUHEN v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
John J. Sullivan, Savannah, for plaintiff in error.
Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., Sol. Gen., R. E. Barker, Savannah, Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Rubye G. Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
The defendant was indicted, tried and convicted of robbery by the use of an offensive weapon, and his punishment was fixed at not less than 9 nor more than 20 years to be served in the penitentiary. Thereafter he filed a motion for new trial which was amended by adding four special grounds, and after a hearing was denied. The exception is to that judgment. Held:
1. The general grounds having been expressly waived, no ruling will be made thereon.
2. There is no merit in the special ground complaining that the court failed to charge that the intent to steal is an essential element of the crime, since a casual reading of the entire charge shows clearly that the court did charge this element in more than one instance.
3. The chare to the jury on the subject of flight was authorized by the evidence, as it is not necessary that the flight take place immediately. Code § 38-302; Johnson v. State, 188 Ga. 771(1), 772, 4 S.E.2d 639. The evidence clearly showed that the defendant fled the State after he became a suspect, and no evidence was submitted explaining such flight to be from another cause. Sewell v. State, 76 Ga. 836.
4. The mere fact that the trial judge charged the language of the Code defining robbery, and in doing so charged that it was the taking of property 'by sudden senatchuing,' as well as the various other methods of taking thereunder, would not be error since the court proceeded to state that the defendant was charged with the offense of robbery 'by the use of an offensive weapon' and by 'intimidation,' and there is no merit in the special ground complaining that there was no evidence in support of the charge on 'sudden snatching,' where the court clearly pointed out the type of robbery with which the accused was charged.
5. The fourth special ground complains of the additional charge, requested by the jury, as to information about parole and the status of the maximum and minimum sentence if fixed by the jury. The judge charged that, under the law, he was prohibited from charging the jury on matters concerning parole, which lie entirely with the Pardon and Parole Board, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cauley v. State, s. 48422
...about a month. The remark had been made in the courtroom so that the jury and any others present could hear it. Cf. McKuhen v. State, 216 Ga. 172(5), 115 S.E.2d 330; McKuhen v. State, 102 Ga.App. 75(2), 115 S.E.2d 625; Berry v. State, 107 Ga.App. 643, 131 S.E.2d 115.2 Ga.L.1973, p. 286, eff......
-
Horton v. State
...offense." Ibid. fn. 12. The policy of this state is not to allow argument or charge on matters concerning parole. McKuhen v. State, 216 Ga. 172(5), 115 S.E.2d 330 (1960); Code Ann. § 27-2206. This policy forbids comment with regard to a defendant's inability to make parole, as well as his a......
-
Johnson v. State, 56929
...Woodruff v. State, 233 Ga. 840, 842, 213 S.E.2d 689. "(I)t is not necessary that the flight take place immediately." McKuhen v. State, 216 Ga. 172(3), 115 S.E.2d 330. Fifteen to twenty minutes after the alleged crime is relevant. Sullivan v. State, 222 Ga. 691, 693, 152 S.E.2d 382. Nor is s......
-
Thomas v. State
...court's flat refusal to comment is not what was found erroneous in McGruder and subsequently in other cases such as McKuhen v. State, 216 Ga. 172, 115 S.E.2d 330 (1960). No error occurred in this open court exchange. Cf. Berryhill v. State, 235 Ga. 549, 221 S.E.2d 185 Enumeration 7 is witho......