Miller v. State
Decision Date | 20 January 1896 |
Citation | 25 S.E. 366,97 Ga. 653 |
Parties | MILLER v. STATE. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where the credibility of a witness was open to attack because upon a previous occasion, when it was apparently his duty to speak out, he had not disclosed any knowledge whatever as to certain very material matters, but at the trial testified that he did have knowledge of the same on the occasion referred to, it was competent to sustain the witness by proving that he kept silent on that occasion because he was advised to do so.
2. A juror whose deceased wife had been a second cousin of the accused in a criminal case was not disqualified from serving on the trial thereof unless the deceased wife left issue; and where, on such trial, the state alleged the incompetency of the juror, on the ground that he was related by affinity to the accused, it carried the burden of showing that the former relationship was still subsisting, by proving affirmatively that the deceased wife did in fact leave issue.
3. It was error, upon the trial of an indictment for murder, to admit in evidence against the accused declarations made by a third person before the homicide was committed, which, though uttered in the presence of the accused, amounted at most to no more than an implied threat by the person making them against the life of the deceased, and contained nothing tending to incriminate the accused, or call for a repudiation of them upon his part, and which--there being no evidence of any conspiracy between him and the declarant to commit the murder, nor any legal reason rendering them admissible--were totally irrelevant to the issue on trial.
Error from superior court, Paulding county; C. G. Janes, Judge.
Clabe Miller was convicted of homicide, and brings error. Reversed.
The following is the official report:
Clabe Miller and Howard Parton were jointly indicted for the murder of Wesley H. Roberts. They severed. Howard was tried convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment, and his motion for a new trial was overruled. The material grounds of the motion are sufficiently apparent from the opinion, excepting those referred to in the third division, which are as follows: Error in refusing to exclude, on motion of defendant, the following testimony of W. J. Parris: Defendant moved to exclude the testimony as to Parton's sayings to Parris on the ground that the evidence failed to show any conspiracy between said Parton and defendant, and for that reason Parton's sayings were not admissible on the trial of Miller. Error in not excluding, on motion made upon the ground just stated, the following testimony of Eliza Parris ...
To continue reading
Request your trial