Terhune v. State, 43137
Decision Date | 05 December 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 43137,No. 2,43137,2 |
Parties | W. B. TERHUNE v. The STATE |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Fullbright & Duffey, Harl C. Duffey, Jr., Harris & Royal, Rome, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Sol. Gen., J. Walter LeCraw, George K. McPherson, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. Defendant was convicted and sentenced for assault with intent to murder. The contention that the evidence demanded a finding that defendant was insane at the time the act charged against him was committed is without merit. See Graham v. State, 102 Ga. 650, 653, 29 S.E. 582; Boyd v. State, 207 Ga. 567, 569, 63 S.E.2d 394; Fields v. State, 221 Ga. 307, 308, 144 S.E.2d 339.
2. All applications for continuances are addressed to the trial judge's sound discretion, (Code § 81-1419), which will not be controlled except for flagrant abuse. Curry v. State, 17 Ga.App. 377(1), 87 S.E. 685 and citations. It was not an abuse of discretion to overrule defendant's motion for continuance based on the absence of a witness under the circumstances here. The case had been continued twice before because of the absence of the same witness and there was no showing that defendant expected he would be able to procure the witness at the next term of court. Further, it appeared that the witness' non-expert opinion as to the insanity of defendant would be merely cumulative of that of five other witnesses who were present and who testified for defendant on the same issue. See Huffman v. State, 95 Ga. 469(2), 20 S.E. 216; Johnson v. State, 155 Ga. 509, 511, 117 S.E. 434; Blount v. State, 18 Ga.App. 204(1), 89 S.E. 78; Hewitt v. State, 27 Ga.App. 676(2), 109 S.E. 679; Clarke v. State, 41 Ga.App. 556(1), 153 S.E. 616; Johnson v. State, 72 Ga.App. 534(1), 34 S.E.2d 555. The case of Ryder v. State, 100 Ga. 528, 531, 28 S.E. 246 is distinguishable in several respects. For one, in Ryder there was a detailed showing of peculiar facts on which the absent witnesses would base their opinions.
3. It was not error to refuse to give in charge defendant's written request as follows: The second sentence, which we have emphasized, renders the request an inaccurate and self-contradictory statement of the law. The language of the request, lifted from context in Wilson v. State, 9 Ga.App. 274, 286, 70 S.E. 1128 was obiter expressing the judicial writer's personal opinion that the burden should be upon the state to prove the sanity of an accused. Thus, as is frequently the case, this language used by the appellate judge in his opinion is inappropriate for use in a charge by a trial court judge. See Merritt v. State, 107 Ga. 675, 680, 34 S.E. 361; Atlanta & West Point R. Co. v. Hudson, 123 Ga. 108, 109, 51 S.E. 29; Lewis v. State, 65 Ga.App. 214, 215, 15 S.E.2d 624.
4. Remarks of the solicitor general stating in his closing argument to the jury, were not in violation of an Act of 1955 (Ga.L.1955, p. 191; Code Ann. § 27-2206).
5. The court did not err in refusing to declare a mistrial because the solicitor-general used the following language in his argument: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Vaughn v. State, 46957
...declined to follow urgings in this respect. along the same lines enlarging upon this suggestion. As was stated in Terhune v. State, 117 Ga.App. 59(5), 159 S.E.2d 291, 293, 'A solicitor general may argue to the jury the necessity for enforcement of the law and may impress upon the jury with ......
-
Bryan v. State, s. 51292
...may impress on the jury, with considerable latitude in imagery and illustration, its responsibility in this regard.' Terhune v. State, 117 Ga.App. 59, 60 (159 S.E.2d 291). The statements made here appear innocuous in comparison with remarks held to be within permissible bounds in cases such......
-
Alexander v. State, 57577
...on the jury with considerable latitude in imagery and illustration, its responsibility in this regard." Terhune v. State, 117 Ga.App. 59, 60 (5), 159 S.E.2d 291, 293 (1967). Furthermore, the defendant did not move for a mistrial but simply objected to the argument. In response, the trial ju......
-
August v. State
...and may impress on the jury with considerable latitude in imagery and illustration its responsibility in this regard. Terhune v. State, 117 Ga.App. 59, 159 S.E.2d 291. See also: Johnson v. State, 246 Ga. 126, 269 S.E.2d 18; Burke v. State, 153 Ga.App. 769, 266 S.E.2d 549. Moreover in this s......