Odum v. State

• Decision Date: 12 February 1937
• Docket Number: 11600.
• Citation: Odum v. State, 183 Ga. 854, 190 S.E. 25 (Ga. 1937)
• Parties: ODUM v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

190 S.E. 25

183 Ga. 854

ODUM v. STATE.

No. 11600.

Supreme Court of Georgia

February 12, 1937

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; James C. Davis, Judge.

James Odum was convicted of an offense, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

Howard Tiller & Howard, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

John A Boykin, Sol. Gen., J. Walter LeCraw, E. E. Andrews, and John H. Hudson, all of Atlanta, M. J. Yeomans, Atty. Gen., B. D Murphy, Asst. Atty. Gen., and E. J. Clower, of Atlanta, for the State.

Syllabus OPINION.

BELL Justice.

1. The defendant was indicted for the offense of murder alleged to have been committed on July 1, 1935, by stabbing with a knife and beating with an iron pipe. On the trial two witnesses for the State were permitted to testify that in the month of October, 1935, during a disturbance between other persons, in which the defendant became involved, the witnesses overheard a statement, made by the defendant's wife in his presence, to the effect that he had killed one man with an iron pipe and was not afraid to kill another, to which statement he made no response. The testimony of each of these witnesses was admitted over objection based upon the sole ground 'that the wife of a defendant cannot be made to testify against her husband; and that such evidence was not relevant or proper, for the reason that the law does not permit a wife to testify against her husband, and a third party cannot testify as to a wife's statement.' Held that the court did not err in overruling this objection. Knight v. State, 114 Ga. 48, 39 S.E. 928, 88 Am.St.Rep. 17; Williams v. State, 139 Ga. 591, 77 S.E. 818; Nunn v. State, 143 Ga. 451(2), 85 S.E. 346; Hudson v. State, 153 Ga. 695, 113 S.E. 519. The assignment of error does not raise the question decided in Jones v. State, 2 Ga.App. 433(5), 58 S.E. 559, and Bowen v. State, 36 Ga.App. 666, 137 S.E. 793.

2. The court did not err in admitting the testimony of a chemist that he had made an examination of an iron pipe shown to have been found near the body of the deceased, and that the examination 'disclosed evidence of blood on said pipe,' over objection that 'none of the witnesses had testified that the defendant was ever in possession of said pipe, or that he ever had any connection therewith.' There was circumstantial evidence tending to show that the defendant had been in possession of the pipe and to establish his 'connection therewith.'

3. The same witness was permitted to testify, over objection, that he examined 'the Chevrolet automobile in which the evidence showed certain other parties, who were jointly indicted with defendant, had been riding on the day on which the deceased was killed, and that his examination of said automobile showed blood about various parts of the car; the witness testifying that on the rear seat and other portions of the car he found blood spots and smears of human blood.' The defendant objected to this evidence, on the ground that it was not shown that he 'had ever been in said automobile and had any connection therewith,' and that according to the testimony of the witness the examination was made some time in August or September whereas the homicide was alleged to have been committed on July...