Turbaville v. The State Of Ga.
| Decision Date | 31 January 1877 |
| Parties | Christopher C. Turbaville, plaintiff in err0r. v. The State of Georgia, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Criminal Law. Witness. Practice in the Superior Court. Evidence. New Trial. Verdict. Before Judge Underwood. Polk Superior Court. August Term, 1876.
Reported in the opinion.
C. G. Jones; W. M. Sparks; Blance & King, by E. N. BroylES, for plaintiff in error.
*C. T. Clements, solicitor general; Wright & FeaTH-ERSTOn; Ivy F. Thompson, for the state.
The defendant was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter, and the evidence justified the verdict. A new trial was moved for on the ground of certain alleged errors on the trial, it was refused, and this judgment, overruling the motion for a new trial, is assigned as error.
The first ground is that only the foreman's name appears in the transcript of the record here in respect to the verdict of the jury, but it was not insisted upon, and need not be considered.
The second ground was the refusal of the court to order the sheriff and deputy, who were witnesses for the state, to leave the court room on the separation of the witnesses, and the refusal to allow one witness to remain to assist the prisoner. We think that this is matter for the discretion of the court below, and no proof being adduced of injury to the defendant from the exercise of that discretion in this case, but good reason appearing for the course the judge pursued, we shall not interfere. Code, § 3863.
As to the next ground, that the court should have admitted proof that deceased said that prisoner saved himself from a d—d good whipping by shooting him, and should have re-opened thecase after it was closed, for that purpose, we see no such error as would require us to grant a new trial. It would not have affected the verdict if admitted, and it was very much in the discretion of the court to open or not open the case again, dependent upon the weight and character of the evidence. So about the admissibility of some irrelevant testimony.
The real point in the case, and the only point seriously urged here, is that when the jury returned a verdict of "guilty of involuntary manslaughter without due caution and circumspection, " the judge refused to receive it, but *sent them back, and charged them the law as to the two kinds of involuntary manslaughter; whereupon the jury returned a verdict of guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
It will be seen that the important words ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ramirez
...the law into force. (3 Words & Phrases, 2564, 2565.) Similar verdicts have been held to be bad. (Thetge v. State, 83 Ind. 126; Turbaville v. State, 58 Ga. 545; Washington v. State, 55 Fla, 194, 46 So. Allen v. State, 52 Ala. 391; Commonwealth v. Walsh, 132 Mass. 8; O'Leary v. People, 17 How......
-
Jones v. State
...whether a sheriff or other officer of the court be allowed to remain in the courtroom prior to his giving of testimony. Turbaville v. State, 58 Ga. 545; Poultryland Inc. v. Anderson, 200 Ga. 549, 37 S.E.2d 785; Massey v. State,220 Ga. 883(5), 142 S.E.2d 832. We cannot say that the allowance......
-
Miller v. State
...clerk related only to the custody and retention of such garments after they had been introduced in evidence on the first trial. Turbaville v. State, 58 Ga. 545(1). 5. The appellant contends that the district attorney's summation argument was inflammatory and his motion for mistrial on this ......
-
Childs v. State
...405 (1975); Cornett v. State, 218 Ga. 405(2), 128 S.E.2d 317 (1962); Hoxie v. State, 114 Ga. 19(8), 39 S.E. 944 (1901); Turbaville v. State, 58 Ga. 545(1) (1877); Jones v. State, 135 Ga.App. 893(6), 219 S.E.2d 585 (1975); Caito v. State, 130 Ga.App. 831(7), 204 S.E.2d 765 (1974); Childers v......