Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 14 July 1933
• Docket Number: 9230.
• Citation: 170 S.E. 281,177 Ga. 391
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

170 S.E. 281

177 Ga. 391

WILLIAMS v. STATE.

No. 9230.

Supreme Court of Georgia

July 14, 1933

Syllabus by the Court.

Evidence sustained conviction of murder as against defense of alibi.

In prosecution of beneficiary for murder of insured, evidence that defendant was in embarrassed financial circumstances held admissible on question of motive.

In prosecution of beneficiary for murder of insured, evidence that defendant had procured loans under false pretenses which were settled by payment of insurance proceeds held not objectionable as proving distinct offenses.

In prosecution of beneficiary for murder of insured, evidence that defendant had procured loans by false pretenses which were settled by payment of insurance proceeds held not inadmissible as relating to defendant's financial condition.

In murder prosecution, refusing instruction that jury should not consider evidence that defendant was a poor man held not error under evidence.

In murder prosecution, where court informed accused's attorneys that he would permit cross-examination of ballistic expert, previously refused, that court on several occasions in presence of jury reminded accused's counsel that witness was accessible for cross-examination held not to require mistrial.

That juror has formed or expressed opinion from rumor or from newspaper reports will not disqualify him, unless opinion is so fixed that it would not yield readily to testimony.

1. The evidence, though entirely circumstantial, was sufficient to support the verdict.

2. In the prosecution of a father for the alleged murder of his son, the defendant being a minister of the gospel and the beneficiary of an insurance policy issued upon the life of the deceased, evidence that a few weeks before the homicide the defendant embarked upon a series of transactions in the course of which he obtained loans by executing conflicting liens upon a single piece of property, and by stating to each lender that the property was free from other liens, and that after obtaining these loans he bought and sold cotton on margin, with the result that he sustained losses and became indebted to brokers in amounts which he was unable to pay was admissible for consideration by the jury on the question of motive, in connection with the other facts of the case including testimony to the effect that shortly after the homicide the defendant collected the insurance, and with the proceeds immediately paid, or began to pay, the loans to secure which he had executed the conflicting liens. The evidence that he had procured such loans under false pretenses was not subject to objection upon the ground that it tended to prove the commission of separate and distinct offenses; nor was any of the evidence inadmissible upon the ground that it related to the defendant's financial condition.

(a) Under all the facts appearing, the court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury that they should not consider any evidence that the defendant was a poor man and in needy circumstances.

(b) The present case is distinguished by its facts from Johnson v. State, 128 Ga. 71 (3), 57 S.E. 84.

3. The court, after first denying to the defendant's counsel the right to cross-examine a witness as to a certain matter, conceived that he had committed error in this ruling, and thereupon informed the defendant's attorneys that he would permit them to cross-examine the witness as to such matter. The defendant's attorneys did not immediately avail themselves of the right as then assured, and made no definite statement as to whether they would ultimately do so. The matter continued in suspense for some time, with the result that the court on several occasions in the presence of the jury reminded counsel that the witness was accessible, and that the right of cross-examination might still be exercised. Under the circumstances, the trial judge was justified in the belief that it would be exercised, and, having a discretion as to when the cross-examination should be resumed, did not abuse such discretion, so as to afford cause for a mistrial, by so recalling the matter to the attention of counsel from time to time before receiving notice that the cross-examination would not be resumed.

4. That a juror has formed or expressed an opinion from rumor or from newspaper reports will not disqualify him unless it appears that the opinion thus formed is so fixed and decided that it would not yield readily to the testimony.

5. There was no merit in other grounds of the motion for a new trial. The court did not err in refusing the motion.

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

J. M. Williams was convicted of murder, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

Isaac S. Peebles, Jr., and F. Frederick Kennedy, both of Augusta, and M. C. Barwick and Lawrence T. Mahoney, both of Louisville, for plaintiff in error.

Geo. Hains, Sol. Gen., of Augusta, John M. Graham, of Atlanta, and Lawrence S. Camp, Atty. Gen., and T. R. Gress, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BELL Justice.

J. M. Williams was convicted of the offense of murder in the alleged killing of his son R. G. Williams, and in accordance with the recommendation of the jury was sentenced to life imprisonment in the penitentiary. The defendant's motion for a new trial was overruled, and he excepted. Besides the general grounds, the motion for a new trial contained a number of special grounds assigning error respectively upon the admission of evidence over objection, upon certain portions of the court's charge, upon the refusal of requests to charge, and upon the overruling of a motion to declare a mistrial based upon alleged conduct of the trial judge.

1. The state relied solely upon circumstantial evidence, and it is earnestly insisted by counsel for the plaintiff in error that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. We cannot agree to this contention. The record fairly bristles with circumstances tending to show the guilt of the accused, and contains sufficient, if not abundant, evidence to authorize the verdict of guilty. The deceased was a young married man, and had been enlisted in the United States Navy for several years. At the time of his death his station was in New York City. The defendant was a minister of the gospel, located at Rochelle in Wilcox county, Ga. The deceased had recently visited his father in Rochelle, and at the time of his death was supposed to be returning to his station in New York City. At about 6 o'clock on the morning of August 5, 1931, his dead body was found in the yard adjacent to Lombard's Mill, which is situated in Richmond county about 9 miles south of Augusta and near the paved highway known as state route No. 1. This was about 175 miles from Rochelle. The deceased was lying upon his back, with a pistol wound in his left temple and with a like wound in his chest. The bullet which entered his chest penetrated his body and, though lodging in the back of his shirt, left its imprint upon the ground. His coat was carefully folded and laid across his stomach, and his left hand was resting upon his coat. His right arm was in a natural position by his side, and his feet were placed together. There was a mark upon the ground "where the left foot had been pushed up to the right foot." There was no evidence of a struggle anywhere about the body, but there were tracks of an automobile not far away, together with the tracks of a man by the side of the car, with evidence of trampling at that point. The state's theory was that the young man was drugged or struck while in the car and then laid upon the ground and shot. While there was no direct proof in support of this theory, the evidence authorized the inference that the young man was taken from the car in a helpless condition, and was shot while lying upon the ground at the identical place where he was afterwards found. His weight was said to be about 155 pounds, and the evidence tended to show that his father was a man of at least normal strength. From the above statement it will be seen that the very condition of the body indicated that it had been arranged by some one who had a lingering care for it. An envelope bearing the name and address, "Rev. J. M. Williams, Rochelle, Ga.," was found in one of the pockets of the deceased. This could have been consciously left as a means of identification.

On July 23, which was about 13 days before the death of the decedent the defendant appeared at the naval station in New York, having made the trip by automobile, and requested his son to go home with him. On being informed by a naval officer that his son had exhausted his furlough privileges for the year and could not be allowed to leave except in case of emergency, the defendant stated to the officer that the young man's sister was very ill, and that he would doubtless never see her alive again unless he was permitted to go. The evidence showed that, while the sister of the deceased was at the time under medical treatment, she was not in bed, and her illness was scarcely known to any of the neighbors. The defendant did not disclose to his friends that he had made the trip to New York, but stated to several of them that he met his son in North Carolina. On Monday, August 3, the defendant left with his son for Atlanta, where his son was supposed to take a bus for his return to New York. The defendant was next seen in Rochelle as he drove into his garage at about 4 o'clock on Wednesday morning, August 5. A few hours later he was notified of the discovery of his son's body at Lombard's Mill. On receiving this message, he remarked that his son "was murdered for his money"; that "he had around $125 on his person." The evidence authorized the inference that the son was without funds, and that this fact...