Sentell v. State, 26215
| Decision Date | 07 January 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 26215,26215 |
| Citation | 179 S.E.2d 234,227 Ga. 153 |
| Parties | Clarence SENTELL v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The circumstantial evidence, which was relied on solely in this case, did not exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused; therefore, the verdict of guilty was not authorized by the evidence and the judgment on the verdict is set aside.
The appellant and his wife were jointly indicted for the offense of murder. The appellant's trial resulted in his conviction with a sentence of life imprisonment. The trial court granted appellant's motion for a new trial.
On the second trial of the case evidence was adduced as follows: On May 8, 1968 at about 1 p.m., the decedent, Claude Hogue, came to the home of John Reece (or 'Reese'), near Villanow, Georgia (which is between Summerville and Dalton) to get Reece to help him start his (Hogue's) automobile. At about 3 o'clock p.m. they drove to Hogue's home, which was about three miles north, or towards Dalton. Reece and the decedent pushed the latter's automobile onto the Summerville-Dalton highway (#201) and Reece began pushing it toward Dalton with his own automobile. Also at about 3:00 o'clock, the appellant, accompanied by his wife, was driving toward Dalton on the same highway (in his unsworn statement, he stated that he was driving his wife from their home in Summerville to Dalton to get some things she wanted) and they stopped at Jack Stansell's store in Villanow, about five houses north of the decedent's home. Appellant stated that he did not know why his wife had him stop there. Over objection, Stansell testified that she obtained from him directions to the decedent's home. After this, appellant and his wife, with appellant still driving, turned around and rode toward the south, in the direction of the decedent's home. In about 15 minutes, appellant and his wife were seen again driving in a northerly direction and they stopped within sight of Stansell's store and poured something under the hood of their automobile. About 20 or 25 minutes later, Reece pushed the decedent's automobile past the point at which the appellant and his wife were parked. Almost immediately after Reece and Hogue passed them, appellant and his wife began following them and, after the decedent's automobile started operating on its own and drove on ahead, they passed Reece's automobile, slowed down, then sped up several times. Reece came upon the decedent's automobile stopped on the side of the roadway and stopped immediately behind it in response to the decedent's hand signal, whereupon the appellant stopped just behind Reece's vehicle. The decedent got out of his automobile and was directing Reece in fitting their bumpers together when appellant's wife, Mrs. Sentell, got out of her automobile and told the decedent to come back there. On his way back there, the decedent told Reece to be his witness, then replied to Mrs. Sentell that he 'was not going to fight any woman' and, looking at the appellant, who was still seated in the driver's seat, told her that if her husband got out decedent would 'stomp him.' Mrs. Sentell replied that he wasn't going to stomp 'nobody,' whereupon she reached into her automobile and pulled out a .22 calibre pistol, which she pointed at the decedent, who warned her, in effect, not to pull a gun on him unless she was going to use it. Mrs. Sentell then proceeded to shoot at the decedent, chasing him around, shouting at him and threatening Reece's life also in between shots, until her pistol was emptied and the decedent was dead. After the shooting was over, the defendant got out of his automobile, where he had been therefore, and 'just stood there.' Reece was unable to testify positively that the defendant had a gun and there was no other evidence that he did. Reece was not frightened by the defendant, who never threatened nor did anyone any harm, but by his wife, who 'was talking pretty mean to everybody.' After the shooting occurred, Reece ran to a nearby deputy sheriff's house to report the crime and, on his way, he observed the appellant and his wife leave the scene in their automobile. There was evidence that the defendant had had a good reputation as a peaceable man for at least thirty years, but that his wife's reputation was not 'recommended.'
The defendant's unsworn statement was to the following effect: During the five years he and his wife had been living in Summerville, she hadn't been very happy, always fussing with other people. During what little time he had off from his job, she was always having him take her first one place and then another, he never knowing for what. She had the decedent in court at Summerville at one time. On the day in question, she had planned a trip to Dalton to get somethings, which things he did not remember. En route, she asked him to stop on the side of the road, to (use the rest room) or something, he figured. She stayed 15 or 20 minutes, then they drove 'up the road.' They passed a car, then a little farther on there was another car stopped by the road. He kind of slowed down, not knowing who was in the car, and she turned off their ignition switch. He looked over there and saw the decedent, whose car was 'quit.' At that time she had a gun in one hand, and it scared him because 'she's hard to control' and he didn't know what she was up to. She went over to the car of the decedent, who was beside the window. The defendant wasn't particularly looking and just sat there in his seat, not moving. He heard 'some guns' firing and was scared to do anything until he knew what she was doing. She came back and got in the car. He saw that Hogue was shot. When he tried to start up his car it wouldn't crank up, so he had to push it off to start it, after which he drove back to Summerville. He had just sat in his car without moving or doing anything wrong, because he didn't understand what was taking place or know that his wife was going to do such a thing. He never hurt anything in all his life. His wife is now in a mental institution, 'paying for the crime.'
The defendant was again convicted of murder and again sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Townsend v. State, 47424
...Elam v. State, 125 Ga.App. 427, 430, 187 S.E.2d 920, 922. In accord, Redwine v. State, 207 Ga. 318, 324, 61 S.E.2d 481; Sentell v. State, 227 Ga. 153, 179 S.E.2d 234; Busbee v. Battle, 122 Ga.App. 450, 177 S.E.2d 500. 'It is not necessary however, in order to sustain a verdict of conviction......
-
Woodruff v. State
...explanation 'into consideration insofar as it is consistent with the circumstantial evidence properly admitted.' Sentell v. State, 227 Ga. 153, 156, 179 S.E.2d 234, 237. Here, none of the three defendants testified. From the evidence, the only reasonable explanation was that Woodruff was in......
-
Woodall v. State
...must be taken into consideration insofar as it is consistent with the circumstantial evidence properly admitted. Sentell v. State, 227 Ga. 153, 156, 179 S.E.2d 234 (1971). When the testimony of this defendant is taken into consideration, the evidence is consistent with the reasonable hypoth......
-
Muckle v. State
...Harris v. State, 236 Ga. 242, 244-245, 223 S.E.2d 643; Walker v. State, 157 Ga.App. 728, 730, 278 S.E.2d 487, supra; Sentell v. State, 227 Ga. 153, 158, 179 S.E.2d 234; Smith v. State, 56 Ga.App. 384, 387-388, 192 S.E. 647; DePalma v. State, 225 Ga. 465(1), 466-467, 169 S.E.2d 801; Phillips......