Rouse v. State
| Decision Date | 18 November 1936 |
| Docket Number | 11450. |
| Citation | 188 S.E. 904,183 Ga. 551 |
| Parties | ROUSE v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict.
2. The court did not err, in the absence of a written request, in not charging the jury more fully upon the subject of dying declarations. There was sufficient evidence to authorize the jury to find that the deceased was in the article of death and was conscious of his condition when he made the statement concerning the act of the defendant when the homicide was committed.
3. In defining murder, the court charged the jury: This was a sufficient charge upon the subject of malice. If the defendant desired a fuller definition of malice, the same should have been requested.
4. The fact that one of the jurors had said before the trial, in the presence of witnesses who made affidavits to that effect that "the jury would find the defendant, Tom Rouse guilty," was not such an expression of opinion by him as to the guilt of the accused, nor such evidence of passion bias, and prejudice as to require the judge to grant a new trial, the juror having answered the voir dire questions satisfactorily, even though he did not at or before the hearing of the motion for new trial offer an affidavit by himself or other persons to show that he had not used the expression attributed to him.
Error from Superior Court, Twiggs County; J. L. Kent, Judge.
Tom Rouse was convicted of murder, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
R. A. Harrison, of Jeffersonville, and R. Earl Camp, of Dublin, for plaintiff in error.
J. A. Merritt, Sol. Gen., of Dublin, M. J. Yeomans, Atty. Gen., and B. D. Murphy and Geo. L. Goode, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
Tom Rouse was indicted for the murder of Jim Ford. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, with a recommendation. He made a motion for new trial, which was overruled, and he excepted. In addition to the general grounds, the motion complains that one of the jurors who tried the case was not impartial, because he had previously formed and expressed an opinion as to the guilt of the defendant; and two grounds complaining of the charge delivered by the court. The evidence is to the effect that the deceased, the accused, and a number of other negroes were in attendance on a meeting at Marion Church on or about August 11, 1935. The killing occurred in the evening after they had arrived at the church. The hour is not definitely fixed, but it was shortly after dark. The deceased was cut about the head and neck, seventy-five to one hundred yards from the church, where he remained for a short while, and died before reaching his home, where he was carried in an automobile. According to the record, no one of the witnesses actually saw the defendant cut the deceased. Clarence Bryan testified that he saw the defendant and the deceased going "up the road." He did not hear anything said. He went later to the place where the deceased was cut, and immediately went from there and informed a brother of the deceased of what had happened. Warren Wimberly, who drove to the meeting house the truck that carried the defendant, testified that defendant said that he wanted to see Jim Ford about cursing before his sister, and that Ford was up the road somewhere. Witness did not see the defendant follow the deceased, but did see him come back to the truck, and defendant said that he was drunk, and he acted like a drunk man. He said when he returned that he "cut him, and he fell, but he did not hurt him." It seems from the evidence of this witness that the defendant came alone from the direction where the man was cut, and upon his return made the statement that he had cut some one who fell when he was cut.
Lewis Ford, a brother of the deceased, testified for the State that he saw the deceased down the road, that the defendant was down there too; that they were arguing a little, but he did not know what they were arguing about; that the deceased told him that Tom Rouse, the defendant, cut him, but did not say about what; and that his brother, the deceased, died on the way home. Robert Hill testified that he went to where the man was cut, when they were fixing to take him home, and
There was testimony on behalf of the defendant, by his brother that the deceased said, in the presence of a woman named Hennie Stevens, that he was cut by little Robert Hill. Hennie Stevens testified that the deceased never did say directly that Robert Hill cut him, and that she did not tell any one that Robert Hill cut him. Another witness, Buddie Anderson, testified that he saw two people "tussling in the road," and that he did not say that the defendant was the one fighting Jim; and that he did not know when the cutting took place. On cross-examination he...
To continue reading
Request your trial