Scott v. State, 20037
| Decision Date | 07 May 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 20037,20037 |
| Citation | 214 Ga. 154,103 S.E.2d 545 |
| Parties | SCOTT v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. On a trial for murder, the recent previous difficulty between the defendant and the deceased is relevant as shedding light on the occurrence resulting in the homicide, and as illustrating the motive of the defendant.
2. Under the circumstances of this case, it was not error to refuse to declare a mistrial where the court ruled out the evidence, instructed the jury not to consider any of the testimony of the witness and instructed the solicitor that his question was improper.
3. The evidence fully supports the verdict.
James R. Venable, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Richard Bell, Sol. Gen., E. T. Hendon, Jr., Asst. Sol. Gen., Decatur, Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Rubye G. Jackson, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Lois Turner Scott, upon an indictment charging her with the murder of her husband, James Scott, by shooting him with a pistol, was on her trial found guilty of murder with a recommendation of mercy and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Her amended motion for a new trial being denied, she seeks a review of this judgment.
1. Special grounds four and five will be considered together. Over objections of counsel for the defendant that the answers to the questions propounded to Lucille Houston, a witness for the State, would place the character of the defendant in issue, the witness was allowed to answer the following questions: 'Do you know whether or not James Scott and Lois Scott had had nay trouble over W. E. Brannen before?' and 'You had seen who together?' The witness answered in the affirmative to the first question, and to the second answered that she had seen Lois and Brannen together, and that James Scott and the defendant were at their house when they were fighting over Brannen. The defendant thereupon moved for a mistrial on the ground that this testimony was highly prejudicial and asked that counsel for the State be reprimanded.
The court did not err in denying these motions. The murder took place on the premises of Lucille Houston, who previous to the question objected to, had testified without objection that, just before the defendant shot the deceased, the defendant and the deceased had engaged in an argument over the bringing by the deceased of whisky into the home of the witness. She testified that the defendant said to the deceased that, if he could bring whisky into Lucille's house, W. E. Brannen could bring whisky into her house. The sole argument between the deceased and the defendant immediately preceding the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stack v. State, 29324
...state of feeling between the two men and was admissible for this purpose. Foster v. State, 230 Ga. 666(1), 198 S.E.2d 847; Scott v. State, 214 Ga. 154, 103 S.E.2d 545. (b) That the court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for acquittal. The court did not err in refusing a directed verdic......
-
Evans v. State
...relevant as shedding light on the occurrence resulting in the homicide, and as illustrating the motive of the defendant.' Scott v. State, 214 Ga. 154, 103 S.E.2d 545; Williams v. State, 208 Ga. 704(1), 69 S.E.2d 199; Coleman v. State, 141 Ga. 737, 739, 82 S.E. The contention of the appellan......
-
Harrison v. State, 44613
...a mistrial was necessary to preserve the right of fair trial.' Worthy v. State, 184 Ga. 402(1), 191 S.E. 457. And see Scott v. State, 214 Ga. 154(2), 103 S.E.2d 545. 6. In cross examining the handwriting expert defendant's counsel asked whether she had used standards or exemplars other than......
-
Davenport v. Davenport
...... alimony and attorney fees, the renewed petition alleging that the parties were living in a state of voluntary separation, the same ground alleged in the first count of the petition upon the trial ......