Smith v. State
Citation | 97 S.E. 454,23 Ga.App. 76 |
Decision Date | 16 November 1918 |
Docket Number | 9791. |
Parties | SMITH v. STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Grounds 4 and 5 of the motion for new trial cannot be considered by this court, because it does not appear in the former that any objection was made to the admission of the evidence and passed upon by the court at the time the evidence was offered. Cooper v. Chamblee, 114 Ga. 116, 39 S.E 917 (1); Tilley v. McJunkin, 116 Ga. 426, 42 S.E 741 (1); City of Atlanta v. Sciple, 19 Ga.App. 694 92 S.E. 28 (1); and cases cited. Ground 5 cannot be determined without reference to other parts of the record. "No ground of a motion for new trial which is not complete and understandable without resorting to an examination of the brief of evidence or the charge of the court will be considered as presenting a question for consideration by this court." Southern Ry. Co. v Williams, 19 Ga.App. 544, 91 S.E. 1001 (4).
Ground 6 of the motion for a new trial is specifically abandoned by plaintiff in error.
The admission of dying declarations is complained of in ground 7. If it could be said that the admissibility of these dying declarations was doubtful, "it has long been the rule in this state, when the admissibility of evidence is doubtful to admit it and leave its weight and effect to be determined by the jury." Goodman v. State, 122 Ga. 118, 49 S.E. 925, and cases cited; Hornsby v. Jensen, 12 Ga.App. 697, 78 S.E. 267 (1). The preliminary evidence was sufficient to authorize the admission of these dying declarations, leaving it to the jury, under proper instructions, to determine if they were made in articulo mortis, and if the deceased was conscious of her condition. Young v. State, 114 Ga. 849 (2), 850 (2), 40 S.E. 1000; Dumas v. State, 62 Ga. 59 (2). But if it be conceded that error was committed in admitting the testimony set out in this ground of the motion for a new trial, it was not such a material error as would authorize this court to grant a new trial, for practically the same evidence from another witness was before the jury. Matthews v. Richards, 19 Ga.App. 489, 91 S.E. 914 (2), and cases cited.
The defendant in his statement at the trial said that the deceased had cut him, and at the time he fired she was advancing on him with a knife. A witness swore: It was not shown that the knife was one likely to produce death. In the case of Cain v. State, 7 Ga.App. 24, 65 S.E. 1069 we find the following: In Tanner v. State, 145 Ga. 72, 88 S.E. 555, the Supreme Court said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial