Spikes v. State

• Decision Date: 11 November 1936
• Docket Number: No. 11346.,11346.
• Citation: 188 S.E. 454,183 Ga. 279
• Parties: SPIKES . v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

183 Ga. 279

188 S.E. 454

SPIKES .

v.STATE.

No. 11346.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 11, 1936.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Error from Superior Court, Ware County; M. D. Dickerson, Judge.

Wilson Spikes was convicted of murder, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

Bennett & Bennett, of Waycross, for plaintiff in error.

John S. Gibson, Sol. Gen., of Douglas, M. J. Yeomans, Atty. Gen., B. D. Murphy, Asst. Atty. Gen, and E. J. Clower, of Atlanta, for the State.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

ATKINSON, Justice.

Wilson Spikes and Mrs. Paul Har-graves were jointly indicted for the murder of Paul Hargraves, committed by shooting him with a shotgun. On a separate trial Wilson Spikes was convicted, without any recommendation by the jury. The exception is to a judgment overruling the defendant's motion for a new trial.

1. A witness testified to having seen several shot holes in the body of the deceased, apparently coming from different ranges, some from the front and some from the side. The witness was then asked: "Would it have been possible for those shot to have been placed that way in the body from one shot, or would there have had to have been two shots from different angles?" Objection to this question was urged on the ground that it elicited a conclusion of the witness who had not qualified as an expert. The witness then answered, in response to questions propounded to him that, he had shotguns, was familiar with the operation of shotguns, and with the courses that would be taken by the shot from such guns. He was then asked to answer the question above quoted. Objection was again urged that the witness had not qualified as an expert. The objection was overruled, and the witness was permitted to answer: "I think there would have had to have been two." Whether or not the witness was shown to be an expert, as defined in Macon Railway & Light Co. v. Mason, 123 Ga. 773, 51 S.E. 569, the court did not err in admitting the opinionative testimony. Tanner v. State, 163 Ga. 121 (7), 135 S.E. 917; Nunn v. State, 143 Ga. 451, 85 S.E. 346.

2. The court charged the jury as follows: "The defendant in this case has filed his plea of not guilty. He contends that, while he killed the deceased, that he did it under threats or menaces which sufficiently showed that his life or member was in danger. He contends further, gentlemen of the jury, that he was not mentally responsible at the time of the commission of the alleged offense. A person committing a crime or misdemeanor under threats or menaces which sufficiently show-that his life or member was in danger, or that he had reasonable cause to believe, and did actually believe, that his life or member was in danger, shall not be found guilty; and such threats or menaces being proved and established, the person compelling by such threats and menaces the commission of the offense shall be considered a principal and suffer the same punishment as if he had perpetrated the offense. I charge you in this connection, in order for duress or fear produced by threats or menaces to be a valid, legal excuse for doing anything which would otherwise be criminal, the act must have been done under such threats or menaces as show that life or member was in danger, or that there was reasonable cause to believe, and actual belief, that there was such danger. The danger must not be one of future violence, but of present...