Wiggins v. State

• Decision Date: 01 March 1890
• Citation: 10 S.E. 1089,84 Ga. 488
• Parties: Wiggins v. State.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

10 S.E. 1089

(84 Ga. 488)

Wiggins

v.State.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

March 1, 1890.

Continuance—Absent Witness.

A continuance on account of the absence of defendant's witness is properly refused, in a murder trial, where it appears that he was residing either in Georgia or Florida; that his attendance at the trial in Georgia might have been procured by the exercise of diligence, but that the only effort made by defendant's attorney was to place a subpoena in the hands of the sheriff; and that the facts intended to be established by him might have been proved through other witnesses.

Error from superior court, Sumter county; Fort, Judge.

Ansley & Ansley, for plaintiff in error. C. B. Hudson, Sol. Gen., for the State.

Blandford, J. The plaintiff in error was indicted for the crime of murder. He was placed upon his trial, and found guilty by the jury. He moved for a new trial upon several grounds, which motion was overruled by the court, and he excepted.

1. One of the grounds of the motion is that the court committed error in refusing to grant a continuance on account of the absence of a witness. This witness was a physician who had testified before the coroner's inquest. It appears from the record that the accused had counsel assigned him several days before the case was called, and, if any diligence had been observed by them, they could have procured the attendance of this absent witness. All the diligence shown by them was the placing of a subpoena in the hands of the sheriff of Sumter county; and while it was shown that the witness lived either in Georgia or Florida, no further means were taken by counsel for the accused to procure the attendance of this witness. Besides, the evidence which they proposed to show by him was such evidence as might have been shown by any other physician. We do not think the court committed error in refusing to grant a continuance of the case upon the grounds stated.

2. There were various other grounds taken in the motion for a new trial, among others, that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence, and without evidence to support it. We are satisfied, from the evidence adduced on the trial of this case, that there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict, and that the same was not contrary to law.

3. It is further alleged that the court committed error in some of the instructions given by it to the jury, and in refusing to give certain requests made by coun-sel for the plaintiff in error. We have examined...