Strickland v. State
Decision Date | 09 March 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 18129,18129 |
Citation | 209 Ga. 675,75 S.E.2d 6 |
Parties | STRICKLAND v. STATE. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Robert J. Duffy, Savannah, for plaintiff in error.
Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., Sol. Gen., Sylvan A. Garfunkel, Thomas M. Johnson, Jr., Asst. Sols. Gen., Savannah, Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Rubye G. Jackson, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
A grand jury in the Superior Court of Chatham County indicted Robert Remer Strickland, charging him with the murder of James Lawton Lewis. He was convicted of that offense, without recommendation, and in Strickland v. State, 209 Ga. 65, 70 S.E.2d 710, this court, by a divided bench, reversed the conviction on the ground that the charge was in specified particulars erroneous. On a second trial, he was again convicted of murder and sentenced to be electrocuted. A motion for new trial, based on the usual general grounds, was timely filed and afterwards amended by adding two special grounds complaining of statements made by the solicitor general during his argument to the jury. His amended motion was overruled, and error was assigned on that judgment. Held:
1. The defendant's guilt of murder was amply established by competent evidence introduced by the State, which showed robbery to be his motive for the killing. The accused offered no evidence, but, in his statement to the jury, said in substance that he could not deny the killing; that he realized it was wrong; that he did not know why he did it; that he did not even know the deceased prior to the homicide; that he was not angry with him; and that, if he had not been in some kind of a 'mood,' he would not have done it. In rebuttal, the State introduced evidence, expert and otherwise, which fully authorized the jury to find that the accused, at the time of the commission of the act charged, had reason sufficient to distinguish between right and wrong with reference thereto. The general grounds of the motion for new trial are, therefore, without merit.
2. During his argument, the solicitor general said to the jury: to this, counsel for the accused promptly objected and moved for a mistrial on the ground that it was a misstatement of the law, of highly prejudicial consequences and, therefore, injurious to the accused. The judge promptly announced: After this, the motion was overruled by the court, and we think properly so. Under our system of trial by jury we hold the judge responsible for a correct presentation of applicable law; and trials are not nullified in this jurisdiction by counsel's misstatement of the law, where the judge, by his charge or otherwise, correctly instructs the jury on the law so misstated. Hudson v. State, 153 Ga. 695(11), 113 S.E. 519. The charge of the court is the law of the case, Robinson v. State, 77 Ga. 101, and jurors are bound by their oaths to take the law applicable to the case from the court; not from counsel or any other source. Brown v. State, 40 Ga. 689; Habersham v. State, 56 Ga. 61, 62; Council v. Teal, 122 Ga. 61(5), 49 S.E. 806; Mims v. State, 188 Ga. 702(4), 4 S.E.2d 831; Gilleland v. Welch, 200 Ga. 789(1), 38 S.E.2d 598. In this case it is not suggested that the court failed to instruct the jury fully and correctly upon its discretionary right to recommend mercy or life imprisonment in the event of a conviction for murder and, after looking at the record, we are satisfied that a proper charge on that subject was given. In these circumstances there is clearly no merit in this special ground, which complains of a misstatement of the law by the solicitor general in his argument to the jury. And a different ruling is not required in this case because the solicitor general, in later...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chenault v. State
...for a death sentence and offer plausible reasons for his position. Allen v. State, 187 Ga. 178, 182, 200 S.E.2d 109; Strickland v. State, 209 Ga. 675(2), 75 S.E.2d 6. The remarks objected to in the motion were not made during the first phase of the trial, that in which the jury was to pass ......
-
Street v. State
...death sentence and offer plausible reasons for his position. Allen v. State, 187 Ga. 178, 182, 200 S.E. 109 (1938); Strickland v. State, 209 Ga. 675(2), 75 S.E.2d 6 (1953); Chenault v. State, 234 Ga. 216, 215 S.E.2d 223 (1975). The district attorney may urge severe punishment. Bailey v. Sta......
-
Coker v. State
...for a death sentence and offer plausible reasons for his position, (Allen v. State, 187 Ga. 178, 182, 200 S.E. 109; Strickland v. State, 209 Ga. 675(2), 75 S.E.2d 6) and the district attorney may urge severe punishment. Bailey v. State, 153 Ga. 413(4),112 S.E. 453; Hamilton v. State, 131 Ga......
-
Shoemaker v. State, 203
...to reversible error (Thompson v. State, 203 Ga. 416, 47 S.E.2d 54) and the latter not to (McLendon v. State, supra; Strickland v. State, 209 Ga. 675, 75 S.E.2d 6). In Bland v. State, 211 Ga. 178, 84 S.E.2d 369 (1954) a sharply divided court applied the McLendon rule to comments by the trial......