Wilson v. State

Decision Date16 March 1960
Docket NumberNo. 20794,20794
Citation113 S.E.2d 447,215 Ga. 782
PartiesFrank WILSON v. STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Robert L. Stevens, Warren D. Evans, Thomson, for plaintiff in error.

J. Cecil Davis, Sol. Gen., Warrenton, Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Rubye G. Jackson, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

HAWKINS, Justice.

Frank Wilson was convicted without recommendation to mercy in Warren Superior Court of the murder of LeRoy Toulson by shooting him with a shotgun. To the judgment denying his motion for a new trial as amended he excepts. Held:

1. The general grounds of the motion for a new trial have been expressly abandoned.

2. Special ground 1 of the motion for a new trial assigns error upon the admission in evidence of three shotguns, two fired or spent shotgun shells, and three loaded or unfired shells, and on the denial of the motion to exclude all testimony as to the three unfired shells and as to shotguns, with the exception of the shotgun which the State contends was used in the firing of the two empty shells, because they could have no bearing upon the case and the issues involved, and would be highly prejudicial to the defendant; that all three shotguns be excluded, unless the State can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one of those shotguns fired the fatal shot which the State contends took the life of the deceased. There was no eyewitness to the shooting of the deceased, but in his statement to the jury the defendant admitted the shooting. The sheriff testified that he found one of the shotguns in the house where the defendant was at the time of the shooting, and two empty shotgun shells on the floor. The evidence discloses that, following the shooting, the defendant carried the other two shotguns to a neighbor's house, where he stated he had shot the deceased, and left them in the smokehouse where the sheriff found them the next morning loaded with two of the shells introduced in evidence. There was no evidence as to which particular gun fired the shot which killed the deceased. The evidence shows that all three guns and the shells had been in the possession of the defendant, and that the deceased died from wounds inflicted by such a gun. Under these circumstances, it was not error to deny the motion to exclude the guns, the shells and the testimony relative thereto. See, in this connection, Powers v. State, 172 Ga. 1, 3(15), 157 S.E. 195; Shafer v. State, 191 Ga. 722(2), 13 S.E.2d 798; Garner v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • State v. Hatton
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 9 Abril 1974
    ...cert. denied, 359 U.S. 972, 79 S.Ct. 887, 3 L.Ed.2d 839 (1959); State v. Hancock, 245 Or. 240. 421 P.2d 687 (1966); Wilson v. State, 215 Ga. 782, 113 S.E.2d 447 (1960); State v. Montgomery, 175 Kan. 176, 261 P.2d 1009 Appellant Hatton has cited cases involving the attribution of the acts of......
  • Palmer v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 1 Junio 1999
    ...to, or after, the commission of the crime.'" Tyler v. State, 251 Ga. 381, 382(2), 306 S.E.2d 263 (1983) quoting Wilson v. State, 215 Ga. 782, 783(2), 113 S.E.2d 447 (1960). The deputy's testimony about Palmer's possession of the murder weapon was 9. The victim-impact evidence was not improp......
  • Favors v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 8 Abril 1975
    ...that the victim was shot by the pistol held by the defendant. The admission of the bullet was not reversible error. Wilson v. State, 215 Ga. 782(2), 113 S.E.2d 447; Powers v. State, 172 Ga. 1(15), 157 S.E. 3. Appellant enumerates as error the exclusion of the 'first offender record of convi......
  • Morrison v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 5 Septiembre 1973
    ...off. It was not error to admit into evidence this physical evidence over the objections made to same. Code § 38-201; Wilson v. State, 215 Ga. 782(2), 113 S.E.2d 447 and cits. 2. The search of the Morrison farm was not illegal, because the owner (defendant's father) invited and requested the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT