Owens v. State
| Decision Date | 11 May 1904 |
| Citation | 120 Ga. 209,47 S.E. 545 |
| Parties | OWENS . v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
CRIMINAL LAW—SECOND STATEMENT BY ACCUSED—MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL—GROUNDS—NECESSITY OF SPECIFIC ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR —ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.
1. Whether a prisoner shall be allowed to make a second statement rests in the discretion of the trial judge.
¶ 1. See Criminal Law, vol. 14, Cent. Dig. § 1585.
2. Grounds of a motion for a new trial, which allege generally that extracts from a charge are erroneous, will be considered merely as alleging that the extracts do not set forth sound propositions of law, and, if they do, no inquiry will be made as to whether they are adjusted to the facts of the case, in the absence of a specific assignment of error setting forth that they are not.
3. While counsel should not be permitted in argument to state facts which are not in evidence, it is permissible to draw deductions from the evidence, and the fact that the deductions may be illogical, unreasonable, or even absurd, is matter for reply by adverse counsel, and not for rebuke by the court.
4. The evidence authorized the verdict, and no sufficient reason has been shown for reversing the judgment.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Stewart County; W. B. Butt, Judge.
Reece Owens was convicted of murder, and brings error. Affirmed.
G. Y. Harrell and B. F. Harrell, for plaintiff in error.
John C. Hart, Atty. Gen., and F. A. Hooper, Sol. Gen., for the State.
COBB, J. Reece Owens was convicted of the murder of his father, and complains that the judge refused to grant him a new trial. Besides the general grounds, the motion contains eight special grounds. The rulings in the first three headnotes dispose of the points raised in six of these grounds. In another ground complaint is made that the court erred in admitting evidence which was irrelevant. The evidence was clearly relevant, and whether what the witness said was so unreasonable that it ought not to have been believed was a question for the jury. Another ground complains that while a witness was upon the stand testifying as to the reputation of the deceased for peace or violence, having said that the worst thing the witness knew about the deceased was that he "could never be seen without that old Winchester rifle, " the judge remarked, "That don't amount to anything; that is one of the constitutional rights of the state and of the United States—to bear arms." The assignment of error upon this language...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frank v. State
... ... have been thoroughly logical or well gounded, was so palpably ... an excess of the right of argument, or so plain an effort to ... get facts improperly before the jury, as to call for rebuke ... by the court, and that a failure to so rebuke him will ... require a new trial. Owens v. State, 120 Ga. 209, 47 ... S.E. 545 ... 16 ... Several grounds of the motion relate to certain alleged ... disorder occurring in the courtroom and vicinity during the ... progress of the trial. It is contended that on account of ... such disorder it prevented a fair ... ...
-
Butts v. Davis, 47045
...minutes, as a matter of fact,' and the jury was then brought back. Citing McNabb v. Lockhart & Thomas, 18 Ga. 495(4); Owens v. State, 120 Ga. 209, 210(3), 47 S.E. 545; and Cawthon v. State, 71 Ga.App. 497, 498, 31 S.E.2d 64, which in fact support allowance of great latitude in argument and ......
-
Howard v. Central of Georgia Railroad Company
...of the Court." Miller v. Coleman, 213 Ga. 125, 130, 97 S.E.2d 313 (1957). This matter is well settled in Georgia law. Owens v. State, 120 Ga. 209, 47 S.E. 545 (1904). In this matter of argument by counsel, the court in Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. York, 128 Ga. 687, 689, 58 S.E. 183 (1907) ......
-
Dudley v. State, 56667
...in his argument to draw deductions from the evidence which may be even illogical, unreasonable or even absurd. See Owens v. State, 120 Ga. 209, 210(3), 47 S.E. 545; Walker v. State,232 Ga. 33, 36, 205 S.E.2d 260. There is no merit in this complaint. 5. Evidence of an understanding or agreem......