Thomas v. State

• Decision Date: 10 March 1890
• Citation: 10 S.E. 1016,84 Ga. 613
• Parties: THOMAS v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

10 S.E. 1016

84 Ga. 613

THOMAS v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

March 10, 1890

Error from superior court, Early county; CLARKE, Judge.

Hugh Henderson and R. H. Powell, for plaintiff in error.

J.W Griggs, Sol. Gen., for the State.

SIMMONS J.

Albert Thomas was indicted, tried, and convicted of the murder of his wife. He made a motion for a new trial upon 12 grounds which was overruled by the court, and he excepted. We deem it unnecessary to deal with these grounds seriatim.

1. In regard to the first and second grounds of the original motion, we think it is sufficient to say that we have carefully read and considered every word of the evidence sent up in this record, and we believe the evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict of the jury.

2. The first six grounds of the amended motion complain of certain charges of the court, set out therein, as being erroneous. We do not think the charges complained of, when taken in connection with the whole charge, contain any such material error as would authorize us to grant a new trial in this case. The whole charge was a fair, full, and able exposition of the law of murder, and presented the issues fairly to the jury.

3. The seventh ground of the amended motion complains that the court erred in refusing, "as requested by defendant, that if the jury had any reasonable doubts as to whether or not the confessions were voluntarily made, they must reject them." The eighth ground of the amended motion complains that, in lieu of defendant's request to charge, the court gave the following: "Instead of that, I charge you gentlemen of the jury, that you are honestly to conclude under the evidence before you, whether these confessions were freely and fairly made. If they were, take them into your consideration; if not, reject them from your consideration." There was no error, in our opinion, in refusing to give the charge as requested, and in giving instead the one set out in the eighth ground. This same point was made in the case of Carr v. State, ante, 626, (decided at this term of the court,) in which it was held that it was not error to refuse to give the charge requested, or in giving a charge in substance like the one in this case, and that the court was correct in leaving it to the jury to determine, from the whole facts, whether the confessions were freely and voluntarily made. See that case, and authorities there cited.

4. The ninth...