Rickerson v. State

• Decision Date: 25 January 1887
• Citation: 78 Ga. 15
• Parties: RICKERSON v. THE STATE OF GEORGIA.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

78 Ga. 15

RICKERSON v. THE STATE OF GEORGIA.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

January 25, 1887

October Term, 1886.

1. Motion for new trial being made in term, and by an order, set down for hearing in vacation, and the brief of evidence being filed during the term, but not approved by the court:

Held, that approval at the time of hearing the motion was sufficient, and the judge having then approved and ordered the brief to be filed, it could come up as a part of the record, though the clerk did not enter the filing after the approval, but left the evidence of filing to stand as entered on the brief during the term. (Headnote by the court.)

2. Where the evidence tending to show the corpus delicti, on a trial for murder, made a close case, and rested, in part, on whether a certain red stain in the sand was blood or not; and where a physician, who was a witness for the defendant, stated that he would not testify that anything was blood unless he had analyzed it and knew it to be blood, it was error tending to the injury of the defendant for the presiding judge to say to the witness that, if he should come down town and find a man lying on the sidewalk with his throat cut, and should find red spots on the pavement, would he not say that was blood?

3. It was error to refuse to charge that, if there was apparent conflict in the evidence, it was the duty of the jury to reconcile it if they could, and not impute perjury to any witness.

New Trial. Practice in Superior Court. Criminal Law. Charge of Court. Evidence. Before Judge SIMMONS. Bibb Superior Court. October Term, 1885.

Reported in the decision.

CAMP & ANDERSON, for plaintiff in error.

CLIFFORD ANDERSON, attorney-general; JOHN L. HARD EMAN solicitor-general, for the State.

BLANDFORD Justice.

The plaintiff in error was indicted, tried and convicted by the superior court of Bibb county, of the offence of murder, in that, it was alleged, he had killed and murdered Harrison Brown.

2. In all cases of violations of the criminal laws, there are two things necessary for the State to prove: first, that there has been a crime committed-that is called the corpus delicti; and next, that the accused committed the crime. The evidence in this case showed that, near the track of the Central Railroad there was found a small place in the sand, a few inches in diameter, which Dr. Hall, who was called there to examine it, thought was blood, but would not say was blood. He noticed particularly that from that point to the railroad track, where the body of Harrison Brown was found and was supposed to have been placed, there was no blood or appearance of blood. His body was found on the track, greatly mangled by the cars, so much so that it could not be recognized except from the clothing found upon the body. This is all the evidence, independent of the...