Shropshire v. State

• Decision Date: 19 December 1888
• Citation: 8 S.E. 450,81 Ga. 589
• Parties: SHROPSHIRE v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

8 S.E. 450

81 Ga. 589

SHROPSHIRE v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

December 19, 1888

Error from superior court, Floyd county; MADDOX, Judge.

A. H Harris and Wright, Meyerhardt & Wright, for plaintiff in error.

C. T Clements, Sol. Gen., and Harrison & Peeples, for the State.

SIMMONS J.

Howard Shropshire and Jack Robinson were indicted for the offense of robbery. On the trial of the case the jury returned a verdict of guilty as to both defendants. The defendants made a motion for a new trial, upon the several grounds stated therein which motion was granted as to Jack Robinson, and refused as to Shropshire; whereupon Shropshire filed his bill of exceptions, alleging error in overruling his motion for new trial.

1. The fifth ground of the motion for a new trial complains that the court erred in charging the jury as follows: "You have the right to take into consideration the character of the defendants, in the event you are at all doubtful as to whether the defendants committed this crime or not. If you have any doubt about it, you may take into consideration the character of the defendants; but if, on the other hand, you believe this case has been made out, if you believe these parties have committed the crime, it makes no matter what their character is, it is your duty to convict them." The error assigned upon this charge is that the court took away from the consideration of the jury the good character of the defendants, unless the jury should be doubtful as to whether they committed the crime or not; in other words, that he instructed the jury, in substance, that they must consider all the other evidence in the case, and, after doing so, if they were doubtful as to the guilt of the defendant, then they might consider proof of good character; but, if the other evidence introduced did not make it a doubtful case they could not consider the good character of the accused. We think the court restricted the jury too much in this instruction. Evidence of good character, when offered by the defendant in a criminal case, is always relevant, and therefore is always material; and, if material, in our opinion it should go to the jury, and have such weight as the jury see proper to give it. If it is material, it should be considered by the jury, not merely where the balance of the testimony in the case makes it doubtful whether the defendant is guilty or not, but where such evidence of good character may of itself generate a doubt as to the defendant's guilt. Good character is a substantive fact, like any other fact tending to establish the defendant's innocence, and ought to be so regarded by the court and jury. Like all other facts proved in the case, it should be weighed and estimated by the jury, for it may render that doubtful which otherwise would be clear. Of course, if the guilt of the accused is plainly proven to the satisfaction of the jury, it is their duty to convict, notwithstanding proof of good character; but where the evidence is doubtful and conflicting, the importance of the character of the accused is increased. We think this is the meaning of the cases where this subject has heretofore been treated of by this court. Epps v. State, 19 Ga. 102; Thomas v. State, 59 Ga. 784; Coxwell v. State, 66 Ga. 309; Jackson v. State, 76 Ga. 551. We think the proper construction of these cases is that, where the guilt of the accused is made, by proof, to appear to the satisfaction of the jury, they are authorized to convict, regardless of the good character of the accused, but that the jury have a right to consider the good character of the defendant, not merely where his guilt is doubtful under the other testimony in the case, but where such testimony of good character may of itself generate this doubt. Whart. Crim. Ev. (8th Ed.) § 66, and notes; State v. Henry, 5 Jones (N. C.) 65; Stover v. People, 56 N.Y. 315; Jupitz v. People, 34 Ill. 516; State v. Gustafson, 50 Iowa 194; Kistler v. State, 54 Ind. 400; Fields v....