Morris v. State

• Decision Date: 18 May 1933
• Docket Number: 9184.
• Parties: MORRIS v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

169 S.E. 495

177 Ga. 106

MORRIS v. STATE.

No. 9184.

Supreme Court of Georgia

May 18, 1933

Syllabus by the Court.

Transcribed statement dictated and signed by all defendants in presence of each other held not inadmissible under rule that confession or statement by one joint offender or conspirator made after enterprise is ended, is admissible only against himself (Pen. Code 1910, § 1029).

Charge that statements or admissions of coconspirators after enterprise had ended were not admissible against accused unless under statute providing that acquiescence or silence when circumstances require answer or denial, may amount to admission, held not erroneous, as applied to statement which evidence showed accused participated in dictating and all alleged coconspirators signed, although not requiring jury to determine whether answer or denial was required (Pen. Code 1910, § 1029).

Refusing charge that all admissions should be scanned with care and confessions received with great caution, and that uncorroborated confession would not justify conviction held not reversible error, in view of more favorable charge given.

In prosecution for murder committed during robbery, evidence that accused told witness that he and codefendants robbed another place shortly before killing, held admissible as establishing conspiracy and as corroborating other evidence of accused's participation in robbery in which killing occurred.

In prosecution for murder committed during robbery, testimony that accused and one of his codefendants committed similar robbery two days previously held competent to establish conspiracy to commit robberies, and to rebut accused's statement that he had never committed robbery.

1. The written statement signed by the defendant and others jointly indicted with him, relating to the transaction in which the decedent was killed, was not inadmissible upon the ground that a confession or statement by one joint offender or conspirator, made after the enterprise is ended, is admissible only against himself; it appearing that the defendant participated with the others in dictating the statement, after which they all signed it in the presence of each other.

2. The court charged the jury as follows: "A certain statement has been offered by the State, and is in evidence, signed by three parties, including the defendant on trial. I instruct you that statements or admissions of other alleged conspirators after the alleged enterprise has ended are not admissible against this defendant and could not be used as evidence against him, unless under section 1029 of the Code, which reads as follows: 'Acquiescence, or silence, when the circumstances require an answer or denial or other conduct, may amount to an admission.' You would not consider, therefore, the statements of the other two in the written paper which has been read to you, unless you find that they amounted to an acquiescence, which in itself amounted to an admission by this defendant against himself." This charge was not erroneous for any reason stated in the motion for a new trial.

3. Under the particular facts of this case, the court did not commit reversible error in refusing a written request to charge that "all admissions should be scanned with care, and confessions of guilt should be received with great caution; and a confession alone, uncorroborated by other evidence, will not justify a conviction," the court having given a charge which, as applied to the facts, was more favorable to the accused than that which he requested.

4. The court did not err in admitting the testimony of a witness for the state that the defendant told the witness that he (the defendant) and those jointly indicted with him had "held up and robbed another place a short while" before the robbery, in the course of which the decedent was killed. This evidence tended to establish a conspiracy on the part of the defendant and his companions, embracing the general intent and purpose of committing robberies, and was relevant as corroborating other evidence of the defendant's participation in the robbery in which the killing occurred.

5. For the same reason the court did not err in admitting the testimony of another witness for the state, that the defendant and one of his codefendants had committed a similar robbery only two days before the transaction in question. Furthermore, the defendant stated to the jury that he had never committed a robbery in his life, and the evidence here referred to was admissible for the purpose of rebutting such statement.

6. There was no merit in any of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; Edgar E. Pomeroy, Judge.

Richard Morris was convicted of murder, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

Otey B. Mitchell, Jesse B. Simmons, and Lester C. Dickson, all of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

J. A. Boykin, Sol. Gen., J. Walter Le Craw, and E. A. Stephens, all of Atlanta, and Lawrence S. Camp, Atty. Gen., and T. R. Gress, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BELL Justice.

Richard Morris was indicted jointly with Richard Sims and Tom White, alias Mose White, for the alleged murder of Frank C. Foster. Upon a separate trial Richard Morris was convicted without a recommendation, and the death sentence was imposed. The defendant's motion for a new trial was overruled, and he excepted.

The evidence for the state tended to show that the three defendants named with another man by the name of Harold White entered a store in the city of Atlanta for the purpose of committing a robbery, and that Foster, a police officer who was in the store at the time, sought to interfere and was shot and mortally wounded by Harold White, but that Harold White was then and there shot and killed by the officer before the officer died. The evidence authorized the inference that the defendant Morris participated in the robbery by exhibiting a pistol and by other acts, and that he was guilty of the homicide as alleged. In the motion for a new trial, as amended, it is contended that the presiding judge committed a number of errors during the trial, and the assignments of error will be considered in the order in which they are discussed in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error.

1. It is complained that the court erred in admitting in evidence a written statement signed by the defendant and two others who were jointly indicted with him. This statement was as follows:

"About seven o'clock Wednesday night, March 16, 1932, we together with Harold White left the house in the rear of 34 Rawson Street, and went out Rawson Street to Capitol Avenue and out Capitol Avenue to Bass Street, out Bass Street to Washington Street to Washington Terrace, and there we got the Ford coupe that we were using on the night of March 16. The car was parked by the side entrance to 735 Washington Street. We went out Washington Terrace to Pulliam Street and Pulliam Street to Richardson Street, and out Richardson to Martin Street, and then we just rode around in Summerhill until about 10:30. Harold White was driving the car. When we left Summerhill, we came up Capitol Avenue to Piedmont Avenue and out Piedmont to Forrest Avenue and Forrest to Boulevard and out Boulevard Place and turned right off of Boulevard on to Boulevard Place and parked the car near the back of the store where the shooting took place. Harold White went into the store and bought the potato chips and came back out and said there were three men in there, but that was all right. Mose White went in first and went just back of the heater near the back of the store. Harold White went in next and asked the man for a lady lock and when the man reached for it, Harold put the gun on him and told him to stick them up. Richard Sims walked in behind Harold and followed him behind the counter. Richard Morris got just inside the store and was near the place where you go behind the counter. Just as Richard Sims rang the register the man that Harold had the gun on ran down behind the counter to where another man was leaning on the counter talking to the man that was shot, and hollored 'Red, Red' [this being a name by which the deceased was called]. Then the shooting started and we three ran out of the store, and Richard Sims left his cap on the counter near the cash register and Richard Morris lost his near the door. About 12:30 we three met near the corner of Woodward Avenue and Frazier Streets and went to the house at the rear of 34 1/2 Rawson Street and divided the money which was five dollars and some change each. Mose White left the house then and Richard Sims and Richard Morris went to bed, and we did not see each other from then until we were all in the police station. The above named streets, locations and route are the ones that we showed the officers this morning.

"(Signed) Thomas White

"Richard Morris

"Richard his x. mark Sims."

A witness for the state testified that he wrote the statement on a typewriter in the presence of the defendant Morris and his companions and in accordance with information which they collectively gave to him at the time he was writing it, and that after the statement was read to them they all signed it in the presence of the witness and in the presence of each other. The admission of the statement in evidence was objected to upon the grounds "that same was a statement of other joint offenders made after the joint enterprise had ended, and was by them confessions not admissible in evidence against the defendant on trial; and *** that same did not constitute such an admission by acquiescence on the part of defendant to statements of others made in his presence as to be...