Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 13 June 1905 |
| Citation | 123 Ga. 138,51 S.E. 322 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
If the corpus delicti and the guilt of the defendant are both proved as the law requires, it will not furnish ground for a new trial that the court did not require the evidence to be so introduced as to divide it into two distinct parts; the first referring to the corpus delicti, and the second to the defendant's connection with the crime.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 14, Cent. Dig. Criminal Law, § 1610.]
A letter written by one accused of a crime a day or two after its commission, and containing statements favorable to himself, is not admissible in his behalf.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 14, Cent Dig. Criminal Law, §§ 928-933.]
Alibi, as a defense, involves the impossibility of the prisoner's presence at the scene of the offense at the time of its commission.
Where a defendant was charged with committing murder by administering poison, evidence introduced for the purpose of proving that he was not present at the time and place when the state contended that he bought the poison was proper for consideration under the plea of not guilty, but did not set up a distinct defense of alibi.
Where counsel for the defendant began to make objection to certain evidence, but the court interrupted him by saying that he could bring out on cross-examination that the testimony was improper, and it did not appear that the objection was ever completed, or the grounds stated, or any subsequent motion to rule out the evidence made, this furnishes no ground for a motion for a new trial.
Where the court properly charged the jury on the subject of reasonable doubt, a request to charge that a particular fact sought to be shown by the defense could create a reasonabledoubt in the minds of the jury was rightly refused.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 14, Cent. Dig. Criminal Law, § 1991.]
After charging that, in order to convict upon circumstantial evidence, the proof must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt, there was no error in refusing to give in charge a request which added that this rule should never be relaxed in a case involving life, or imprisonment for life.
There was no error in refusing to charge that the jury were to consider the evidence of expert witnesses as they did that which fell from the lips of other witnesses, and that the law permitted them to believe it in preference to other evidence, if there was conflict between the two; the request to charge leaving out of view any consideration of the credibility of the witnesses themselves, or their opportunity for knowing the facts to which they testified, or the nature of such facts.
The verdict was sustained by the evidence, and there was no error in refusing a new trial.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Richmond County; H. C. Hammond, Judge.
Neal Williams was convicted of murder, and brings error. Affirmed.
Neal Williams, colored, was indicted for the murder of Mattie Bell Devine. He was convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He moved for a new trial, which was denied, and he excepted. The evidence on behalf of the state was, in brief, as follows: The defendant and deceased lived together in adultery. They sometimes quarreled, and had mutually cursed each other. About a week before the death of the woman they had a quarrel, and she told him to leave. He said when he left he would leave somebody sick or dead. Several days after this, on Sunday, he went to a drug store and bought a, box of poison, known as "Rough on Rats." He inquired if it would dissolve in water or whisky, and aroused the suspicion of the clerk, so that the latter desired to retake the poison, but the druggist told the clerk to let him have it Defendant, in making the purchase, gave a fictitious name; claiming that his name was Charlie Hill. He left on Monday, going from Augusta to Charleston, S. C. On the day he left he broke up some furniture in the house belonging to the deceased, and cut the mattresses. The woman was taken sick Monday night, and died Tuesday night She became sick after eating supper. Her brother, who also ate there, became sick shortly afterwards. Both exhibited symptoms of arsenic poisoning. An antidote was administered to the brother, and he recovered. The morning after her death a box partly filled with "Rough on Rats" was found on a sill over the door. A bucket in the house containing flour exhibited signs of having something mixed in it which appeared to be a powder differing in color from the flour. This flour and some biscuits which had been cooked by the deceased were examined by a chemical test, and found to contain arsenic. The witness who so testified stated on cross-examination that the test used would show the presence of arsenic or antimony; that the analysis was not carried further to differentiate between arsenic and antimony, for the reason that both of them are irritant poisons, and antimony is not contained in Rough on Rats, which is mainly composed of arsenic. The stomach of the woman was taken out and afterwards examined, but no arsenic was found in it. It had certain red splotches or spots upon it, which one of the witnesses testified might have been the result of an irritant. A physician testified on this subject as follows: A negro woman testified that the defendant had asked her on Sunday if she had any concentrated lye or any rat poison, saying that he had two old cats that drank out of his water bucket. Another testified that he applied to her for strychnine on Sunday evening. Another testified that on Monday the deceased and herself were walking on the street, when the defendant came up and obtained from the deceased a key to the house where they were living; that when the witness went back to the house the defendant was gone, the door locked, and the key in the door; that the defendant and the deceased had a fuss on the Tuesday preceding; and that he said he was going to kill her before he got off. Another witness testified that the defendant applied to her for some Red Seal lye, saying that he wanted to kill two old black cats, but she fixed the time of the application as being on Monday. The defendant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKinney v. State
...of evidence is a matter that rests within the trial court's discretion which will not be controlled unless abused. Williams v. State, 123 Ga. 138[, 140(1) ] (51 SE 322)." Brown v. State, 140 Ga.App. 198(1), 199, 230 S.E.2d 349. Accord Gilstrap v. State, 261 Ga. 798, 799(2), 410 S.E.2d 423. ......
-
State v. Harp
...time of the crime the defendant was so distant from the scene that his participation in the crime was impossible. See Williams v. State (1905), 123 Ga. 138, 51 S.E. 322; People v. Lukoszus (1909), 242 Ill. 101, 89 N.E. 749; Leeth v. State (1951), 94 Okl.Cr. 61, 230 P.2d 942; State v. Ovitt ......
-
Farley v. State
...and will not be controlled in the absence of an abuse thereof. Brown v. State, 140 Ga.App. 198, 199, 230 S.E.2d 349; Williams v. State, 123 Ga. 138, 51 S.E. 322. There is no merit in Enumerations 7 through 3. As to enumeration of error 6, appellant urges it was prejudicial hearsay to allow ......
-
Sasser v. State
...can complain. Stone v. State, 118 Ga. 705, 45 S.E. 630, 98 Am.St.Rep. 145; Cawthon v. State, 119 Ga. 395, 46 S.E. 897; Williams v. State, 123 Ga. 138, 51 S.E. 322; v. Gulley, 124 Ga. 547, 52 S.E. 890. 4. The fourth ground of the amendment to the motion for new trial complains that the court......