Morgan v. State

• Decision Date: 12 July 1904
• Citation: 48 S.E. 238,120 Ga. 499
• Parties: MORGAN v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

48 S.E. 238

120 Ga. 499

MORGAN v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

July 12, 1904

Syllabus by the Court.

1. There was no error in overruling the motion for a continuance, or in the rulings as to the admission of evidence, or in the charges complained of. The court fully and fairly charged the law on the subject of confessions, and covered all the issues raised by the evidence or the statement of the defendant. The evidence was sufficient to establish the corpus delicti, and to corroborate the defendant's confession of guilt.

Error from Superior Court, Webster County; Z. A. Littlejohn, Judge.

H. B Morgan was convicted of willfully and maliciously burning a building, and brings error. Affirmed.

Jno. R Cooper, G. Y. Harrell, and A. R. Logan, for plaintiff in error.

F. A. Hooper, Sol. Gen., and J. B. Hudson, for the State.

LAMAR J. (after stating the facts).

The fire occurred on the 13th of March. The trial was had on the 5th of April. The record, when read in connection with the note of the presiding judge, clearly establishes that the defendant's motion for a continuance was properly overruled. There was no motion for a change of venue, and no showing as to excitement or prejudice, beyond what was stated in the defendant's motion, which, in view of his confinement in jail, was but an unsupported conclusion, and fully answered by the fact that the state exhausted its strikes, while the jury was secured before the defendant had exhausted his. The admission as to what the absent witness would testify in reference to the bottle of oil made it proper, also, to overrule this ground of the motion. In a trial for arson the allegation of title or occupancy need not be proved with the same degree of fullness as would be necessary in actions involving title or right of possession. The oral evidence of Stapleton that he was trustee in bankruptcy, and in possession of the property as such, was itself probably sufficient, nothing to the contrary appearing. The copy of the proceedings in bankruptcy showing his appointment was sufficient, when certified by the referee. McLanahan v. Blackwell, 119 Ga. 64, 45 S.E. 785.

Horne, a witness for the state, testified to a confession. It appeared that the prisoner and several other persons were talking together; that Horne came up during the conversation, and afterwards heard the confession. Counsel objected to the admission of this evidence on the ground that Horne did not know what had taken place before he arrived--whether the confession was voluntary, or whether it had been induced by promises or threats. We deem it unnecessary to consider this question, or whether, as contended, the presumption is that a confession thus overheard was voluntary, for in any event it affirmatively appeared in the record from the testimony of a witness-- Montgomery--who was present before Horne arrived, and at the beginning of the conversation with Morgan, that there had been no threats or promises, but that the subsequent confession overheard by Horne was freely and voluntarily made.

Nicholson whose place of business was burned, testified that Morgan said that, "if it was not for me, he would not care if the damned town was in ashes." This witness further testified, "The state of feelings between myself and Harrell was not good." There was an objection that it was not "competent to show the state of feelings between the witness and Harrell, because there was no conspiracy shown or proven." But this was not a statement by Morgan or Harrell, inadmissible to bind the other until the fact of a conspiracy had been established. It was one link in the chain of circumstances. It was an effort to establish a motive on the part of one who was alleged to be a conspirator, and who, according to the defendant's...