Trammell v. State

• Decision Date: 14 January 1937
• Docket Number: 11598.
• Citation: Trammell v. State, 183 Ga. 711, 189 S.E. 529 (Ga. 1937)
• Parties: TRAMMELL v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

189 S.E. 529

183 Ga. 711

TRAMMELL v. STATE.

No. 11598.

Supreme Court of Georgia

January 14, 1937

Error from Superior Court, Troup County; L. B. Wyatt, Judge.

Mose Trammell was convicted of murder, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

Claud F. Brackett and John H. Hudson, both of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Wm. Y Atkinson, Sol. Gen., of Newnan, M. J. Yeomans, Atty. Gen., B D. Murphy, Asst. Atty. Gen., and E. J. Clower, of Atlanta for the State.

Syllabus OPINION.

RUSSELL Chief Justice.

Mose Trammell was indicted for the murder of his wife. On the trial the evidence tended to show the following facts: Most Trammell and his wife were separated. The wife was living with her mother in Troup county, and the defendant was living in Atlanta. He went to Troup county to visit his wife. He arrived at the home of his mother-in-law, and found the wife and her sister ironing. Their mother also was in the room, sitting by a fire. They were talking. The defendant became enraged at the refusal of his wife to return to him, and began to cut and stabbed the three women with his pocketknife. They fell out the door into the yard, or were thrown out by defendant, he falling out on top of his wife. She and her sister were mortally wounded, and died within a few moments. The mother recovered. The defendant jumped from the ground and ran off through the woods. He was found about two and a half miles from where the homicide took place. He had crossed and got out of the road, and had kept his knife with bloodstains on it. At the trial he made a statement in which he claimed that the women had tried to kill him, that his wife had hit him, that they had all jumped on him, his wife grabbing a flatiron, that his sister-in-law had brought an iron poker into the room, and there was a shotgun, and he thought they were going to kill him, that they knocked him down and out of the door, and that he cut them to protect his own life. In his statement, he further said that he was on his way to surrender to the sheriff, when he was apprehended. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder, without a recommendation. The defendant moved for a new trial. The court overruled the motion, and the defendant excepted.

Two grounds of the motion are as follows: (4) 'Movant contends that the court erred in failing and refusing to grant a continuance in his case, on motion. * * * On the call of the case for trial by the court, and the State announcing ready, the court * * * said, 'What do you say for the defendant?' Thereupon Mr. John H. Hudson, of counsel for movant, in his place as such in open court, moved for a continuance, as follows, 'The defendant will not be ready in this case. Last week, beginning on Monday morning, I was in the United States court up until Tuesday at 11:00. After that I went into the State court to assist in the prosecution of a case where I had previously attended the prosecution and we finished that case Saturday afternoon about four o'clock. I have hardly had an opportunity, may it please your honor, to look at the indictment. I understand there are two indictments, and have had no time in the world to consult with the defendant, and have seen him only one time. No time to prepare this case and present it properly up to the present. For those reasons, I feel it is my duty as one of the counsel in the case to ask this court to grant a reasonable time to get ready.' Movant contends that he should have been granted a continuance by the court in this case, in order that his counsel have a reasonable time to prepare his defense; and he further contends that in refusing to grant the continuance requested the court abused its discretion in such matters, and forced movant to go to trial when his counsel was not prepared for trial, and that it was error to overrule his motion for a continuance.' (5) 'Movant insists that the court erred in overruling a motion to continue the case, made by Col. Claud F. Brackett, leading counsel in the case, Mr. Brackett stating in his place as counsel for movant, on the call of the case, as follows: 'Of course, I am with Mr. Hudson in this defense. Last Friday, and before this man was indicated, my wife had to go to the Crawford W. Long Hospital for a major operation, and she was in the critical condition, and it was impossible for me to come down here and see the indictment and confer with the defendant, or knowing anything about what particular witnesses the State had, or anything about it. I was in that position, and today is the first time I have been able to come down here myself. I have been unable to have any conference at all with this man since he was indicted; and for these reasons we cannot possibly go to trial.' The court: 'Have you had any conference with him before he was indicted?' Mr. Brackett: 'Yes, sir, I had a conference with him before he was indicted.' And further on the ground that associate counsel, Mr. John H. Hudson, in support of the motion to continue, stated to the court as follows: 'For the additional ground of motion for continuance, I have only been employed in this case for about ten days or thereabout, * * * a little better than a week; and I ask a continuance. I never have had time to prepare his defense.' * * * The court: 'I overrule your motion.' Three hours later the case was called again on the same day, May 12, 1936, for trial, in the following manner: The court: 'What do you say, Mr. Hudson?' Mr. Hudson: 'We are in no better shape than we were this morning. We still insist on our motion, but under the court's ruling this morning we will go to trial.' The court: 'Strike a jury, gentlemen.' Movant contends that the overruling of this motion by the court and the judgment of the court compelling movant to go to trial when his counsel were unprepared and when his life was at stake was an abuse of the discretion of the court, and was therefore a reversible error.' Supporting affidavits from movant's counsel were attached to and made a part of the motion for new trial. The homicide was committed on April 2, 1936. The indictment was returned by the...