Oliver v. State
| Decision Date | 21 December 1907 |
| Parties | OLIVER v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The facts necessary to be shown before declarations are admissible as dying declarations under Pen. Code 1895, § 1000, may be proven by circumstances and by witnesses other than the witnesses testifying to such declarations; and under the evidence in this case, there was no error in admitting the testimony objected to as dying declarations.
[Ed Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 26, Homicide, § 457.]
Under the facts in this case, there was no error in failing to charge the law of involuntary manslaughter.
The evidence authorized the verdict, and the judgment of the court refusing a new trial will not be disturbed.
Error from Superior Court, Pulaski County; J. H. Martin, Judge.
Junior Oliver was convicted of murder, and brings error. Affirmed.
H. F Lawson, for plaintiff in error.
E. D Graham, Sol. Gen., and Jno. C. Hart, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The accused was convicted of murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment, and brings error to this court on the refusal of the judge below to grant a motion for a new trial. Henry Ryan, a witness for the state, testified that on Saturday night, between 10 and 11 o'clock, he and the deceased, who was the wife of the defendant, were on their way to a supper at a negro's house about 85 yards distant from the scene of the killing, when they met the defendant in the road, and he insisted on his wife returning home with him, which she declined to do. While they were quarreling about the matter, the defendant said to the deceased: "If you don't go home with me from here, I will kill you." Whereupon the witness said: "You all stop your foolishness and quit." The defendant then said: "It was man and wife, and everybody ought to let them alone." The witness then told them when they got through with their "foolishness" to come on to the supper, and walked off, leaving defendant and deceased in the road together. About five minutes later, while standing at the gate of the house where the supper was given, a pistol shot was heard, and, when an alarm was given by a woman and her boys who had just passed through the gate in that direction, the witness, with others, went to the place of the shooting, some 70 yards from where he was standing when the shot was fired, and found the deceased lying in the road, with a pistol ball wound in her head. Next morning, after a physician had said deceased could be moved, she was taken to a house, where she died the following Monday about sundown. The witness testified that there were signs of scuffing in the road. Another witness testified that, early on the Saturday night of the killing, the defendant came to the home of the witness, and asked for his wife, and, when told she was not there, said that, if she did not go home with him, he was going to kill her. This witness further testified that the defendant did not seem to be angry when he made this statement. Evidence was offered by the defendant seeking to impeach this witness, and sustaining evidence introduced by the state in rebuttal. Another witness for the state testified, in reference to a statement made by the deceased on Monday following the infliction of the wound, to the effect that the defendant shot her, and shot her for nothing. The testimony of this witness more fully appears from the opinion. Several witnesses stated that the defendant did not visit the deceased after she was shot.
The defendant in his statement claimed that he and his wife were returning from the supper referred to; that his wife, the deceased, was drunk; that she saw the pistol in his pocket and insisted on firing it; that the deceased snatched the pistol from his pocket, and he then grabbed her to keep her from falling, and also from shooting it; that he never got his hand on the pistol at all; and that while they were "tussling," and he was reaching for the pistol, she stumbled, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parker v. State
... ... additional preliminary proof. The facts necessary to be shown ... before declarations are admissible as dying declarations may ... be proved by evidence as to the nature of the wound and other ... circumstances, and by witnesses other than those testifying ... to such declarations. Oliver v. State, 129 Ga ... 777(1), 59 S.E. 900; Simpson v. State, 168 Ga ... 598(2), 148 S.E. 511; Gibbs v. State, 190 Ga ... 207(4), 9 S.E.2d 248; Emmett v. State, 195 Ga ... 517(1), 533, 25 S.E.2d 9. [197 Ga. 351] As stated above, the ... decision in Whitaker v. State, 79 Ga. 87, 3 ... ...
-
Jones v. State
...made. Anderson v. State, 122 Ga. 161, 50 S.E. 46; Young v. State, 114 Ga. 849, 40 S.E. 1000; Oliver v. State (decided at the present term) 59 S.E. 900. 3. admission of dying declarations does not contravene that provision of the Constitution of the United States which declares that in all c......
-
Postell v. Commonwealth
...whether it has been correctly reported. Fogg v. State, 81 Ark. 417, 99 S.W. 537; People v. Amaya, 134 Cal. 531, 66 P. 794; Oliver v. State, 129 Ga. 777, 59 S.E. 900; v. State, 130 Ga. 274, 60 S.E. 840; Com. v. Lawson, 119 Ky. 765, 80 S.W. 206 ; Jackson v. State, 94 Miss. 83, 47 So. 502." To......
-
Green v. State
... ... 554; Perdue v ... State, 135 Ga. 277, 69 S.E. 184; Barnett v ... State, 136 Ga. 65, 70 S.E. 868; Jefferson v ... State, 137 Ga. 382, 73 S.E. 499. The facts necessary to ... be shown before declarations are admissible as dying ... declarations may be proved by circumstances. Oliver v ... State, 129 Ga. 777, 59 S.E. 900. The facts and ... circumstances were sufficient to make a prima facie case, and ... the court did not err in admitting this evidence, on the ... ground that no proper foundation had been laid ... This ... declaration was not a mere ... ...