Nero v. State
| Decision Date | 07 November 1906 |
| Citation | 55 S.E. 404,126 Ga. 554 |
| Parties | NERO . v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
L Criminal, Law—Statement of Defendant.
The defendant's statement to the jury should be restricted to a narrative account of the matter under investigation, and it is not error for the court to refuse to Instruct a defendant that he may continue the reading of a letter to the jury, after he has begun to read it, but has been interrupted by the solicitor's objection thereto.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 14, Cent. Dig. Criminal Law, § 1589.]
2. Same—New Trial.
It is not ground for a new trial that another has been indicted since the trial for the same offense of which the defendant was convicted.
3. Burglary—Evidence.
The evidence supported the verdict.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Bibb County; W. H. Felton, Jr., Judge.
Lewis Nero was convicted of perjury, and brings error. Affirmed.
F. R. Martin, for plaintiff in error.
Wm. Brunson, Sol. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was convicted of burglary. The only assignment of error in his motion for a new trial which we deem of sufficient importance to specially notice is that relating to the right of the defendant to read to the jury as a part of his statement a letter which he stated had been received by him. Under our system of criminal procedure, the defendant is given the right to make a statement. This privilege is accorded the defendant, so that he may acquaint the jury with his version of the matter under Investigation, and may make reply to the charge against him by way of denial, explanation, or avoidance. In availing himself of this privilege, the accused is not hampered by strict rules of evidence (Vaughn v. State, 88 Ga. 735, 16 S. E. 64), but at the same time he may not indulge in a long, rambling, and irrelevant harangue (Loyd v. State, 45 Ga. 58; Coxwell v. State, 66 Ga. 310). The prisoner must have some regard to relevancy and the rules of evidence, for it was never intended that, In giving ills narrative of matters pertaining to his defense, he should attempt to get before the jury wholly Immaterial facts, or attempt to bolster up his unsworn statement by making profert of documents, letters, or the like, which, If relevant, might be introduced in evidence, on proof of their genuineness. Without such proof, he cannot place them before the jury as corroborating evidence of what he says. It would be extending his privilege far enough to accord him the right of making a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferguson v. State of Georgia, 44
...of documents, letters, or the like, which, if relevant, might be introduced in evidence, on proof of their genuineness.' Nero v. State, 126 Ga. 554, 555, 55 S.E. 404. See also Saunders v. State, 172 Ga. 770, 158 S.E. 791; Montross v. State, 72 Ga. 261; Theis v. State, 45 Ga.App. 364, 164 S.......
- Freeney v. State
-
Freeney v. State
... ... If it be improperly denied, this ... furnishes ground for a new trial. In criminal trials the ... accused has a right to make to the court and jury a statement ... not under oath. Counsel for the defendant have the right to ... comment upon the statement so made. It was held in Nero ... v. State, 126 Ga. 554, 55 S.E. 404, that the statement ... cannot properly be made the vehicle for the introduction of ... documentary evidence, which should be formally offered, and ... that the presiding judge could decline to allow such ... documents to be read to the jury by the ... ...
-
Woodard v. State
...without discussing this question further, the ruling by the court on this point is fully sustained by the Supreme Court in Nero v. State, 126 Ga. 554, 55 S.E. 404; v. State, 129 Ga. 759, 59 S.E. 788; Nobles v. State, 127 Ga. 212, 56 S.E. 125; Crawford v. State, 117 Ga. 247, 43 S.E. 762; Wel......