Wilson v. State, 29179
| Decision Date | 08 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 29179,29179 |
| Citation | 211 S.E.2d 757,233 Ga. 479 |
| Parties | Harris WILSON v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
M. C. Pritchard, Waycross, for appellant.
Vickers Neugent, Dist. Atty., Pearson, Arthur K. Bolton Atty. Gen., John W. Dunsmore, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This appeal is from a conviction of murder in the Superior Court of Clinch County. The appellant was tried by a jury on November 14, 1973, was found guilty, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The appellant contends generally that the verdict was unsupported by the evidence, and that certain charges made to the jury were erroneous.
Appellant was having domestic problems with his wife during the weeks preceding the homicide, and found her at the home of the victim on at least two occasions. On one such occasion, he found her in a partially undressed state. On the day of the killing, appellant went to the home of the victim in search of his wife. Unknown to appellant, his wife was secreted behind the house. Heated words were exchanged, and appellant drove away, followed by the victim. About a mile down the road the vehicles were stopped at which time appellant delivered a fatal wound to the victim with a pocket knife.
The only eyewitness for the state testified that he was at the victim's home during the verbal exchanges. The witness heard appellant challenge the victim to a physical confrontation, to take place at Kings Creek, about a mile down the road from the victim's house. The witness stated that appellant departed in his truck and that the victim followed in his own truck. The witness waited a minute or more and followed, coming upon the two trucks, now parked on opposite shoulders of the road a mile or so down the road. At that point he saw appellant leave his own truck, approach the victim's truck, open the door, make two or three thrusting motions with his arm, close the door, run to his own truck, and drive away from the scene. The witness approached the victim's truck and was asked to drive him to the hospital. While moving the victim to the passenger side of the vehicle, the witness saw a cut on the victim's chest.
The witness testified that he did not see either the appellant or the victim with a knife, and from his view point, was unable to see the hands of the victim when the knifing took place; he never saw the victim leave his truck. A nurse at the hospital found a closed pocket knife in one of the victim's pockets.
Appellant's testimony may be summarized as follows: The victim issued a verbal challenge to fight, whereupon appellant left the house. The victim pursued. Both trucks stopped and both men got out of their trucks. Upon seeing that the victim was armed with a knife, he drew his own knife. The victim made the first threatening gestures, and in the ensuing scuffle appellant swung at the victim, but did not know if he wounded him. He returned to his truck and left the scene.
1. The appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence which tended to show that one of the jurors was prejudiced against the appellant. This was presented to the court in the form of an affidavit by a local businessman who stated that a week after the trial he heard the juror say that he (the juror) knew that appellant was guilty before the trial started. There was no other evidence of any kind on this question. Since a juror cannot impeach his verdict, Code Ann. § 110-109, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial on the basis of hearsay which suggested that a juror was impeaching the integrity of his verdict.
2. The appellant contends that the trial court erred in not granting his timely motion for mistrial. The following question was asked of appellant in the presence of the jury:
'Did you not . . . steal the tires off of that truck.' Appellant responded: 'No, Sir.' The jury was excused and appellant made his motion for mistrial on the theory that the state placed appellant's character in evidence, and that evidence of another crime was irrelevant and prejudicial.
When the jury returned, the judge gave the following instruction: We are of the opinion that in light of the appellant's exculpatory remark which terminated the state's inquiry, and the judge's instruction, if any damage was done to appellant's case, it was sufficiently corrected. See Callahan v. State, 209 Ga. 211(1), 71 S.E.2d 86.
3. Appellant contends that the court erred in allowing the director of the funeral home where the victim was carried to testify about a stab wound on the leg of the victim on the ground that he was not properly qualified as an expert. In response to an inquiry about the wound the witness' entire statement was that 'the leg wound was shallow.' He gave no opinion about the effect of such a wound, but simply stated that fact.
This description of what the witness knew of his own...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. State
...court's discretion and holding: "The proffered evidence in this case was too threadbare to be admissible."); cf. Wilson v. State, 233 Ga. 479, 481 (3) (211 SE2d 757) (1975) (holding that it was not improper for a non-expert to testify to a relevant factual matter within his personal knowled......
-
Young v. State
...court's discretion and holding: "The proffered evidence in this case was too threadbare to be admissible."); cf. Wilson v. State , 233 Ga. 479, 481 (3), 211 S.E.2d 757 (1975) (holding that it was not improper for a non-expert to testify to a relevant factual matter within his personal knowl......
-
Mason v. State
...3. There was no error in failing to charge that the presumption raised by the charge in division 2 was rebuttable. Wilson v. State, 233 Ga. 479, 481, 211 S.E.2d 757 (1975). 4. The appellant contends the court erred in not charging the jury on voluntary manslaughter as it relates to mutual T......
-
Williams v. State
...of proof. [239 Ga. App. 34] This argument has no merit. George v. State, 260 Ga. 809, 811(5)(c), 400 S.E.2d 911 (1991); Wilson v. State, 233 Ga. 479, 482(8), 211 S.E.2d 757 8. The eleventh and twelfth enumerations deal with the testimony of Detective Harris and are considered together. The ......