Mitchell v. State
| Decision Date | 14 December 1921 |
| Docket Number | 2779. |
| Citation | 109 S.E. 357,152 Ga. 375 |
| Parties | MITCHELL v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the indictment.
One ground of the motion for a new trial assigns error on the admission, over timely objection, of the following evidence This testimony was objected to by the defendant's counsel upon the ground that the evidence in regard to insurance on his former wife, who is now dead was not admissible, and could not in any way shed any light upon this homicide. Evidence had already been admitted tending to show that the accused was the beneficiary of insurance policies taken out on the life of his nephew, the deceased, Henry Sam Mitchell; and this was urged as a motive for the defendant to commit the crime. The evidence objected to in this ground of the motion, to the effect that the insurance company had paid the accused $500 when he lost his first wife, was irrelevant and prejudicial, and the error requires the grant of a new trial.
Other grounds of the motion for a new trial were not unqualifiedly approved by the trial judge; therefore no ruling upon them will be made.
Another ground of the motion for a new trial is based upon alleged newly discovered evidence. As the case is, for the reasons stated in the second headnote, to be remanded for a new trial, it is unnecessary to rule upon this ground.
Several grounds of the motion complain of the admission of documentary evidence, such as life insurance policies, the applications therefor, and the like, the objection being that they were hearsay, irrelevant, and inadmissible, that such documentary evidence tended to charge the defendant with an independent crime other than that for which he was being tried, and that the execution of the documents had not been proved. These documents were admissible for the purpose of showing motive; and therefore the court did not err, as against the objections raised in admitting the same.
Other grounds of the motion for a new trial complain of the admission of policies of insurance on the life of the deceased, Henry Sam Mitchell, the ground of objection being that the policies were payable, one to Ella Mitchell, and one to Marie Mitchell. It appears from the evidence that these two designated beneficiaries were relatives of the deceased and of the accused; and the evidence was not inadmissible for any of the reasons assigned.
Other grounds of the motion for a new trial are incomplete, or too indefinite to raise any question to be decided by this court.
The grounds of the motion assigning error on excerpts from the charge of the court are not meritorious, all of which have been settled by previous decisions of this court.
Where counsel objects to the admission of evidence, and the court neither finally admits nor rejects the same, but states to counsel, "Unless the defendant is in some way connected with it I will rule it out, but I will not rule it out now," it is the duty of objecting counsel to renew his objection or move to rule the testimony out; otherwise it will be presumed that the objection is waived.
It was not error to exclude the sayings of a person who had not at the time testified as a witness in the case; the object of the testimony being to lay the foundation to impeach the witness. The legal method of laying the foundation for such impeachment is to first interrogate the person whose impeachment is sought, when he is sworn and placed on the stand as a witness; and therefore the court properly excluded sayings which at the time amounted only to hearsay evidence.
One ground of the motion for a new trial complains that the court admitted, over timely objection, the following testimony of a witness for the state: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial