Whisman v. State
| Decision Date | 07 October 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 23068,23068 |
| Citation | 145 S.E.2d 499,221 Ga. 460 |
| Parties | Woodrow WHISMAN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Reuben A. Garland, Beryl H. Weiner, Edward T. M. Garland, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Earl B. Self, Sol. Gen., Bobby Lee Cook, Summerville, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Rubye G. Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The defendant was indicted, tried and convicted of murder. The evidence discloses that the deceased picked up two hitchhikers near Rome, Ga., was robbed and beaten by them, and left in an abandoned house in Chattooga County, Ga., where he died of wounds received in the beating. In the investigation of a stolen car near Savannah, Ga., approximately seven days later, the two hitchhikers were picked up for questioning. They were arraigned, had counsel appointed for them, and after five days in jail confessed to the murder of the deceased in North Georgia. The body of the deceased was found in the bandoned house just as the confessions disclosed. After his trial and conviction, this defendant filed a motion for new trial which was amended to add 17 grounds, and the exception here is to the overruling of the motion for new trial as amended. Held:
1. Special ground 16 which alleges that the verdict of death was excessive, contrary to the laws of man, nature and decency that mark the progress of society is without merit in that the death penalty for the crime of murder is not cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Code § 1-808 and Code Ann., § 2-109 () The legislative discretion in providing for the death penalty in certain instances has not been abused, that branch of government having full authority to determine the wisdom of the law in applying safeguards for the protection of our society. See Sims v. Balkcom, 220 Ga. 7, 136 S.E.2d 766, and cases cited; also Trimble v. State, 220 Ga. 229, 138 S.E.2d 274. This ground is without merit.
2. Special grounds 4, 10 and 11 all assign error on the allowance in evidence of the confessions of the accused and his accomplice, and to the charge of the court which follows the Georgia statutes on confessions. Counsel cite and rely upon the case of Coker v. State, 199 Ga. 20(2), 33 S.E.2d 171. It is contended that in the Coker case the confession was found by the court not to be freely and voluntarily made in that (1) the prisoner was in his late teens, (2) was subjected to a constant barrage of questioning from 2 or 3 o'clock one afternoon to daylight the next day by five officers, the accused being without benefit of counsel, (3) no one advised him of his rights, and (4), faced with another barrage of questioning the next day without proper sleep, he confessed. The situation here was vastly different in that the accused and his accomplice were under arrest for another crime, and were in jail on that charge for five days before being interrogated, and although the accused is only 18 years of age, he and the accomplice were treated with much kindness by the officers who supplied them with cigarettes, talked to them from time to time, stopped for them repeatedly on the way from Savannah to Floyd County, purchased them hamburgers, milk shakes, and cigarettes, none of which was shown to be for the purpose of influencing the prisoners. No constant barrage of questioning has been shown to have occurred, and the confessions were freely and voluntarily made, without threats or hope of reward, one taking place before two officers and a woman court reporter in Savannah, and the other before the two officers returning them to North Georgia. In the Savannah statement, the prisoners were in a jovial mood, made the statements of their own free will after being advised that they could be used against them, and even though counsel had been appointed for them in another case they advised that they did not want counsel present. Out of the presence of the jury in a hearing before the court the accused swore that he was promised his clothes, money, cigarettes, a bath, a shave, and would be put in a cell with the accomplice if he would confess, but that he made the confession because the accomplice threatened him, implying that he was under the influence of the accomplice. In his unsworn statement to the jury his reason for confessing was because he did not know what he was doing, being 'hopped' up on pills and whiskey, and that he was afraid of the accomplice and did everything the accomplice told him to do, having been threatened at the time of the crime and afterwards. None of these grounds are meritorious in that there was ample evidence that the confessions were freely and voluntarily made, without threats or hope of reward, and after the accused was advised of his rights, and that the same could be used against him, and he stated he did not desire counsel to be present. Likewise the court properly instructed the jury as to the Georgia law (Code § 38-411) concerning the consideration of confessions, and that if the confession was not made voluntarily without being induced by another by the slightest hope of benefit or the slightest fear of injury they should not consider it in their deliberations. See Sims v. State, 221 Ga. 190, 144 S.E.2d 103; Code § 38-411; Irby v. State, 95 Ga. 467, 20 S.E.2d 218; Cantrell v. State, 141 Ga. 98(4), 80 S.E. 649; Garrett v. State, 203 Ga. 756, 48 S.E.2d 377. These grounds are without merit.
3. Where in a colloquy between counsel as to the allowance in evidence of certain exhibits, counsel sought to repeat when the exhibits were identified as being connected with the crime--that is, found in an automobile, and the court stated 'I know that,' this was not an expression of opinion as to what had or had not been proved. See Hatcher v. State, 8 Ga.App. 673(2), 70 S.E. 43; Floyd v. State, 100 Ga.App. 453(6), 112 S.E.2d 171. The ground raising this question is not meritorious.
4. A forest ranger who was a bailiff tending the jury was called as a witness to identify certain photographs he had taken at the scene of the crime and he was examined with reference thereto and as to a search he made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. State
...move for a change of sentence, apparently being satisfied by the second poll that the jury was in fact unanimous. See Whisman v. State, 221 Ga. 460, 145 S.E.2d 499 (1965) cert. den. 384 U.S. 895, 86 S.Ct. 1977, 16 L.Ed.2d 1001. Hargett v. State, 151 Ga.App. 532, 260 S.E.2d 406 (1979). Third......
-
High v. State
...appellant. Wright v. State, 223 Ga. 849, 159 S.E.2d 76 (1968). See Tucker v. State, 245 Ga. 68, 263 S.E.2d 109 (1980); Whisman v. State, 221 Ga. 460, 145 S.E.2d 499 (1965). 6. It is clear from the voir dire examination that the jurors excused for being conscientiously opposed to the death p......
-
Bryant v. State
...mere colloquies between counsel and the trial court regarding evidentiary issues do not violate OCGA § 17-8-57. Whisman v. State, 221 Ga. 460, 462(3), 145 S.E.2d 499 (1965); Colman v. State, 213 Ga. 9, 10(3), 96 S.E.2d 611 9. Ms. Bryant contends that the trial court erred by allowing the ju......
-
State v. Cooper
...415; Kiper v. Commonwealth (Ky.App.1967), 415 S.W.2d 92; People v. Dilworth (1966),67 Ill.App.2d 384, 214 N.E.2d 9; Whisman v. State (1965), 221 Ga. 460, 145 S.E.2d 499; Cf. State v. Tyarks (Mo.1968), 433 S.W.2d In Turner v. Louisiana (1965), 379 U.S. 466, 85 S.Ct. 546, 13 L.Ed.2d 424, the ......