Roberson v. State
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
| Writing for the Court | ATKINSON |
| Citation | 135 Ga. 654,70 S.E. 175 |
| Decision Date | 14 February 1911 |
| Parties | ROBERSON. v. STATE. |
70 S.E. 175
135 Ga. 654
ROBERSON.
v.
STATE.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Feb. 14, 1911.
1. Criminal Law (§ 1038*)—Writ of Error —Review—Failure to Instruct.
Even if certain statements which were attributed to the defendant were of such character as would make them amount to a confession, the mere failure to instruct the jury as to the law of confessions, in the absence of an appropriate request, is no cause for the grant of a new trial.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2646; Dec. Dig. § 1038.*]
2. Criminal Law (§ 864*)—Trial—Counsel for Accused—Necessity for Presence.
Under the special facts of this case, it was not ground for new trial that the judge repeated his instructions to the jury as to the different forms of the verdict authorized to be rendered, in the presence of the defendant, but during the voluntary absence of his counsel.
(a) Certain former cases distinguished and modified in so far as anything said in them may conflict with the ruling here announced.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2068; Dec. Dig. § 864.*]
3. Grounds of Motion fob New Trial Insufficient.
In the light of the evidence and the entire charge, the remaining grounds of the motion for new trial, as approved by the judge, were without merit, nor were they of such character as to require further discussion.
Error from Superior Court, Dodge County, J. H. Martin, Judge.
Elwood Roberson was convicted of murder, and he brings error. Affirmed.
D. M. Roberts & Son and J. H. Roberts, for plaintiff in error.
E. D. Graham. Sol. Gen., and H. A. Hall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
ATKINSON, J. Elwood Roberson and Anna Hendley were indicted for the murder of Fayette Hendley. Elwood Roberson was tried and found guilty by a jury without recommendation. He moved for a new trial. The motion was overruled, and he excepted.
1. One ground of the motion for new trial complained that the court erred in failing to charge the jury upon the subject of confessions. There was no request by the accused or his counsel to charge upon that subject. There was evidence as to certain inculpatory statements which the defendant made. In the judge's note of approval of this ground of the motion for new trial, it was stated that the court charged upon the subject of incriminating statements. There is a substantial difference between confessions and incriminating statements. Weaver v. State, 135 Ga. 317, 69 S. E. 488. Even if the statements attributed to the accused were suffi-
[70 S.E. 176]cient to amount to a confession, the mere failure to instruct the jury on the law of confessions, in the absence of an appropriate request, is not cause for the grant of a new trial. Pierce v. State, 132 Ga. 27, 63 S. E. 792.
2. Another ground of the motion for new trial complained as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Geiger v. State, 47900
...remains with the accused at every stage of trial. Martin v. State, 51 Ga. 567, 568; Smith v. State, 60 Ga. 430, 432; Roberson v. State, 135 Ga. 654(2), 70 S.E. 175; Duke v. State, 104 Ga.App. 494, 122 S.E.2d But, just as other constitutional and statutory rights may be waived intelligently ......
-
Mabee v. Continental Casualty Co.
...to permit the introduction of oral testimony as to a waiver, as no waiver was pleaded. ( McLeod v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 8 Ga.App. 765, 70 S.E. 175; Barclay v. London Guarantee Co., 46 Colo. 558, 105 P. 865; Cranston v. West Coast Life Ins. Co., 63 Ore. 427, 128 P. 427; Snell v. North Britis......
-
Chance v. State, (No. 3469.)
...497, 107 S. E. 536. We do point out that the principle quoted from Martin v. State, 51 Ga. 567, has been modified by Robertson v. State, 135 Ga. 654, 656, 70 S. E. 175. In our opinion, notwithstanding the fact that the accused had the undoubted right to be present throughout the trial, and ......
-
Chance v. State, 3469.
...497, 107 S.E. 536. We do point out that the principle quoted from Martin v. State, 51 Ga. 567, has been modified by Robertson v. State, 135 Ga. 654, 656, 70 S.E. 175. In our opinion, notwithstanding the fact that the accused had the undoubted right to be present throughout the trial, and to......