Robinson v. State
| Decision Date | 11 October 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 17196,17196 |
| Citation | 61 S.E.2d 475,207 Ga. 337 |
| Parties | ROBINSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. In the absence of a timely written request, it is not error for the court to omit from a charge proper instructions on the corroboration of an accomplice, where the State does not rely solely upon the testimony of the accomplice to connect the defendant with the crime charged.
2. A new trial will not be granted upon assignments of error complaining of excerpts from the charge of the court which are not erroneous for any reason assigned, when considered in connection with the full charge as made.
3. It is reversible error for the trial judge in his charge to the jury to intimate his opinion as to what has or has not been proved.
4. A criminal conspiracy can not be established by declarations of alleged conspirators not in the presence of others sought to be bound thereby.
5. It was not error to permit a witness to define the term 'casing.'
6. The testimony of witnesses tending by inference to refute the defendant's statement was not improperly admitted in evidence for any reason assigned.
7. The amount of corroboration required to connect the accused with the crime charged, independent of the testimony of an alleged accomplice, is peculiarly a matter for determination by the jury.
Darrell E. Rogers, Boyce I. Bradford, Joe L. Bishop, John P. Carrigan, and J. Ralph Robinson were jointly indicted for robbery by open force and intimidation, it being alleged that they did 'take from the person of Irma Schell, without her consent and with intent to steal the same, twenty-four thousand dollars in lawful United States money.' From the record before us, it appears that Carrigan was tried and convicted with a recommendation to mercy, and that on the same date Bishop and Bradford entered pleas of guilty with a recommendation to mercy. The three defendants, Carrigan, Bishop, and Bradford[207 Ga. 338] --according to the present record--were the actual perpetrators of the crime, and the defendant Robinson was not present or participating in the actual robbery. It is contended by the State, however, that a conspiracy existed between all of the defendants for the commission of the crime, and that the defendants, Rogers and Robinson, 'cased the job' by furnishing information to the actual perpetrators of the crime.
The defendant Robinson was tried separately, and the jury returned a verdict finding him guilty of robbery by force, with a recommendation of mercy, and fixing his punishment at from six to eight years, which verdict was made the judgment and sentence of the court. His motion for new trial on the usual general grounds, as amended by twenty-two additional grounds, was overruled, and the exception is to that judgment.
Claude V. Driver, Bremen, Willis Smith, Carrollton, for plaintiff in error.
Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., J. R. Parham, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
1. Ground 1 of the amended motion for new trial assigns error on the failure of the court, without a written request, to instruct the jury on the principle of law set forth in the Code, § 38-121. Whether or not the language which the defendant contends should have been charged would be a correct statement of the law, this ground of the amended motion is without merit. The State did not rely entirely upon the evidence of Bradford to connect the defendant with the offense charged; and, in the absence of a timely written request, it was not error for the court to fail to instruct the jury as to corroboration of an accomplice. Robinson v. State, 84 Ga. 674, 678, 11 S.E. 544; Cantrell v. State, 141 Ga. 98(3), 80 S.E. 649.
2. Grounds 2, 3, and 4 assign error on extracts from the charge of the court. It is not contended that the excerpts forming the basis of the defendant's complaints in these grounds of the motion are not sound as abstract principles of law. When the excerpts attacked by these grounds are considered in connection with the entire charge, reversible error is not shown.
3. Ground 5 assigns error on the charge of the court with reference to the law pertaining to a conspiracy; it being contended that the charge as given was an expression or intimation of an opinion by the court that a conspiracy had been proved, that this was harmful, prejudicial, misleading, confusing, and injurious to the defendant, and that the charge was not authorized by any evidence or circumstances in the case. The particular part of the charge assigned as error is as follows:
It is error for a judge of a superior court in any case to express or intimate an opinion as to what has or has not been proved, and in case of violation by any judge of this provision of the Code section, it is made the duty of the Court of Appeals and this court to reverse the decision in such case. Code, § 81-1104.
In Phillips v. Williams, 39 Ga. 597, it was held: 'The statute [Code, § 3183, now § 81-1104], which is imperative and must be obeyed, denies to the Supreme Court the discretion in this matter in sustaining a verdict rendered in accordance with the justice of the case, which it has in other cases, of immaterial errors in the charge of the judge in the court below.' In the body of the opinion it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheffield v. State
...v. Owens, 60 Ga. 185; Sanders v. Nicolson, 101 Ga. 739, 28 S.E. 976; Patterson v. State, 181 Ga. 698, 708, 184 S.E. 309; Robinson v. State, 207 Ga. 337(3), 61 S.E.2d 475. Further, the Court of Appeals has held that where said rule is violated, it is mandatory that a new trial be granted. Im......
-
Jones v. State
...the crime did not place the defendant's general character in issue. Lee v. State, 197 Ga. 123, 28 S.E.2d 465 (1943); Robinson v. State, 207 Ga. 337, 61 S.E.2d 475 (1950). Prior to 1962 the rule was, as it is today, that where the defendant had not placed his general character in issue, proo......
-
Parsons v. Grant
...is considered in connection with the whole charge of the court, no harmful error is shown in this special ground. See Robinson v. State, 207 Ga. 337(2), 61 S.E.2d 475. See also Long v. Gilbert, 133 Ga. 691(5), 66 S.E. 894, 895, wherein this court said: 'An irrelevant charge will not cause a......
-
Garner v. Young, 20011
...Smith v. State, 109 Ga. 479(3), 484, 35 S.E. 59; Florida Central & P. R. Co. v. Lucas, 110 Ga. 121(3), 35 S.E. 283; Robinson v. State, 207 Ga. 337(3), 339, 61 S.E.2d 475. The 4th, 5th, and 6th grounds of the motion for new trial complain of excerpts from the charge of the court which, in su......