Royals v. State
| Decision Date | 15 May 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 17439,17439 |
| Citation | 208 Ga. 78,65 S.E.2d 158 |
| Parties | ROYALS v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The trial court did not err in failing to charge on conspiracy as contended by the defendant.
2. All writings introduced in evidence in lieu of testimony from the witness stand, such as interrogatories, depositions, dying declarations, and confessions of guilt of a defendant or of an alleged co-conspirator, which depend entirely for their value on the credibility of the maker, should not be in the possession of the jury during their deliberations. Where any such papers are delivered to the jury, over timely objections, a new trial must be granted.
(a) Since the evidence in this case upon another trial may not be the same, no ruling will be made upon the general grounds of the motion for new trial.
W. C. Royals and Sam Phillips were jointly indited and charged with murder. The defendant Royals was tried separately and the jury returned a verdict of guilty without a recommendation of mercy. His motion for new trial, as amended, was overruled, and the exception is to that judgment.
Ground 1 of the amended motion for new trial assigns as error a ruling by the court which permitted the signed statement of Phillips (an alleged co-conspirator) to be in the possession of the jury during their deliberations, over the objection of the defendant. Ground 2 assigns as error the delivery to the jury and possession by the jury during their deliberations of a signed statement of the defendant, over the defendant's objections. Ground 3 assigns as error the failure of the court to charge, without request, the Code, §§ 38-306 and 38-414, and headnote 4 from Grace v. State, 49 Ga.App. 306, 175 S.E. 384, as follows: 'Acts, conduct, and declarations of one conspirator pending the wrongful act, not alone in its actual perpetration but also in its subsequent concealment, are admissible against another conspirator.'
D. W. Slone, Lakeland, Gibson & Maddox, Douglas, for plaintiff in error.
Edward Parrish, Sol. Gen., Adel, Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., R. L. Addleton and J. R. Parham, Asst. Attys. Gen., for defendant in error.
1. The contention of the defendant that the trial court should have charged, without request, the principles of law set forth in ground 3 of the amended motion for new trial, is without merit. The Code, § 38-306, and the extract from Grace v. State, 49 Ga.App. 306(4), 175 S.E. 384, could not have been beneficial to the defendant. At the time the statement of Phillips was admitted in evidence, the trial court instructed the jury that they were to consider the statement of Phillips only if they found that there was a conspiracy between the defendant and Phillips to conceal a crime which had been committed, and that the conspiracy to conceal the crime was still in progress. If the defendant had desired any further instruction to the jury on conspiracy under the Code, § 38-414, he should have made a timely written request to charge. No error is shown in this ground of the amended motion for new trial.
2. Grounds 1 and 2 assign error on the rulings of the court permitting the jury to have in the jury room during their deliberations the signed statement of the defendant and the signed statement of Phillips, an alleged co-conspirator, over timely objections of the defendant.
3. Counsel have not cited a case from the courts of Georgia directly in point on this question, and our search has not revealed such a case. In Smithwick v. State, 199 Ga. 292, 293(10), 34 S.E.2d 28, 30, it was held that the trial court did not err in overruling a ground of motion for new trial complaining that written admissions or confessions were taken to the jury room and considered by the jury. However, in the Smithwick case the ruling of this court was based on the fact that the documents 'were admitted in evidence without objection, and no motion was subsequently made as to prohibiting the documents from being considered by the jury during their deliberations'.
The defendant cites and relies upon Strickland v. State, 167 Ga. 452, 145 S.E. 879, where it was held to be reversible error to permit a dying declaration, reduced to writing and signed by the deceased, to be sent out by the court for further considertion by the jury, over the objection of the defendant. It was pointed out in the Strickland case that interrogatories, though read in evidence, should not be delivered to the jury, and that depositions, read in evidence, should not go to the jury. It was held that the written statement of a dying declaration, signed by the deceased, is in effect a deposition.
The Strickland case cites Shedden v. Stiles, 121 Ga. 637, 49 S.E. 719, in which it was held that interrogatories, though read in evidence, should not have been delivered to the jury, over the objection of the party against whom the verdict was rendered, and a new trial was granted in that case. The reason given for not allowing interrogatories to be delivered to the jury was that 'the testimony which they contain, if read and reread by the jury, would have an unfair advantage over oral testimony of the other side, by speaking to the jury more than once.' [167 Ga. 452, 145 S.E. 883.]
It is necessary to determine whether the rule in the Strickland case, supra, where a new trial was granted because the signed statement of the deceased was in the possession of the jury and available for their consideration during their deliberations, would be applicable in the present case. In some respects a dying declaration and the confession or incriminatory statements of an alleged co-conspirator are not dissimilar. Both are exceptions to our rule which ordinarily rejects hearsay evidence. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parks v. State
...Parks contends the court committed reversible error by permitting the written statement to be seen by the jury. See Royals v. State, 208 Ga. 78(2), 65 S.E.2d 158 (1951). Under the circumstances recounted above, we find no reversible 3. Parks filed a pre-trial motion seeking, among other thi......
-
People v. Caldwell
...4 to 3 majorities of the Georgia Supreme Court have twice ruled against sending written confessions into the jury room. (Royals v. State, 208 Ga. 78, 65 S.E.2d 158 (citing Spranger); Walker v. State, 215 Ga. 128, 109 S.E.2d 748, 927) We would agree, however, with the dissenting view that it......
-
Conklin v. State, 41665
...his 4th enumeration Conklin contends that in any event the death certificate should not have gone to the jury room. See Royals v. State, 208 Ga. 78, 65 S.E.2d 158 (1951). We disagree, and find the death certificate, as amended, to have been properly admitted. Dunn v. State, 251 Ga. 731(2), ......
-
Platt v. National General Ins. Co.
...of past recollection recorded are substantially equivalent in effect to interrogatories and depositions (compare Royals v. State, 208 Ga. 78, 81(2), 65 S.E.2d 158; Laster v. State, 163 Ga.App. 294, 295(2), 293 S.E.2d 75). "Such written testimony may have an unfair advantage over oral testim......