Williams v. State

• Citation: 154 S.E. 363,170 Ga. 886
• Decision Date: 26 July 1930
• Docket Number: 7782.
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

154 S.E. 363

170 Ga. 886

WILLIAMS v. STATE.

No. 7782.

Supreme Court of Georgia

July 26, 1930

Syllabus by the Court.

Conviction for murder held authorized by evidence.

The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict.

Failure to charge that reasonable doubt may arise from defendant's statement sufficient to acquit held not error, where court correctly charged on defendant's statement and reasonable doubts.

Where the court in a criminal case has correctly charged the jury on the subject of the defendant's statement, and reasonable doubts, "a doubt which springs from the evidence or want of evidence," etc., it is not error to fail to instruct the jury in this connection that "a reasonable doubt may arise from the defendant's statement, and would be sufficient to acquit him."

Charge to give defendant's statement such weight as jury believes it is entitled to, "no more and no less," held not erroneous; tone of voice or emphasis of trial judge in instructing jury is not reviewable.

On the trial of one charged with murder, it was not error to instruct the jury: "The prisoner has the right to make to the court and jury such statement as he deems proper in his own defense. It is not under oath and you may believe it in preference to the sworn testimony in the case. It is your duty to give such weight and credit as you believe it is entitled to, no more and no less." The use of the last five words of the charge did not render it erroneous because of "the tone of voice in which it was said." The tone of voice or emphasis of a trial judge in instructing the jury is not reviewable.

Charge to convict regardless of defendant's good character, if jury believes beyond reasonable doubt that defendant is guilty, held not error, where court charged on doubt raised by good character.

Where on the trial of one charged with murder, there was evidence of the good character of the deceased, and the court had instructed the jury that if the evidence of good character "of itself, or in connection with other evidence, should create a reasonable doubt in your mind as to his guilt, it is your duty to give him the benefit of that doubt and acquit him," it was not error to add: "But I charge you *** however good his previous character may have been, if you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty in this case, *** then it is your duty to find him so, regardless of his previous good character."

Error from Superior Court, Burke County; A. L. Franklin, Judge.

Anthony Williams was convicted for murder, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

RUSSELL C.J., and ATKINSON, J., dissenting.

Joseph Law and G. C. Anderson, both of Waynesboro, for plaintiff in error.

George Hains, Sol. Gen., of Augusta, and Jno. M. Graham, of Atlanta for the State.

HILL J.

Anthony Williams was indicted for the murder of Jim Scott by shooting him in the body with a shotgun. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, without a recommendation, and he was sentenced by the court to be electrocuted. A motion for new trial was overruled, and he excepted.

1. There was no eyewitness to the shooting. The evidence for the state tended to show that the deceased and his wife, Lou Scott, were shot to death in a field by the accused, who was an overseer or "overlooker" on the farm of Jesse P. Green; that for some time before the homicide there had been ill feeling between the accused and the deceased, and on account of this ill feeling Mr. Green had discharged the deceased and his wife and told them to leave the farm; that threats were made by both the accused and the deceased, and these threats on the part of the deceased to kill the accused were communicated to him. The threat of the deceased was that "he would kill Anthony Williams if Anthony fooled with him." For some time before the homicide the defendant carried a shotgun with him to the field, as he did on the day of the killing. The defendant's statement as to what happened at the time of the homicide was, in part, as follows: "I was going right in this direction [indicating], and when I got to the end there to step up in the road, I reckon Lou and Jim Scott was sitting down in the bottom by some Johnson cane. Time I stepped in the road they come getting up and come on up the road towards me. I said; 'there now.' Spoke just that way. I didn't know what to do. They was walking in the road. My mind said go right on across the field. Well, gentlemen, I went right on across the field, and they come just as you would want to scare somebody, tipping up behind me up the big road, and when they got where I turned off into the cotton-patch, they come right on behind me and run up to me about 40 yards and then I guess stepped up pretty good, coming up running; guess I was scared of Jim, and he hollered, 'Oh Anthony, hold up there, wait there.' I said, 'No, Jim, you go on ahead down there in the field and see the hands. You are coming now for a fuss, and I don't want no fuss. Go on down there in the field, because your wife has done told you, and you ain't going to believe nothing I say. You are coming for a fuss.' I never exactly stopped, but they kept coming right on. When I told them that, I seen they was trying to overtake me. Then I pulled up and went to running. Run for about three hundred yards or more from the big road where us turned in, and when he run up behind me this is his words: 'Gad damn you, I am going to kill you and drink your blood.' And his wife said: 'Catch him.' They were her words and his; and when they said that, gentlement, I whirled around. Jim was as close to me when he spoke them words as that there place, that bannister, when he spoke that. Then I got scared and didn't see nothing else to do to help myself from them two people after me that way, and I whirled around and shot twice immediately, and them two shots killed Jim Scott and his wife. Jim Scott's wife was raising her hand to reach for my gun. Gentlemen, that is true. Gentlemen, I done that because they had done scared me, I had shunned them all the year. I was scared, and that is why I done it."

According to the testimony for the state, the tracks did not bear out the defendant's statement that the deceased and his wife were running after him at the time of the homicide. The tracks "were headed towards their home" (the home of the deceased and his wife), and they...