Wilson v. State, 20578
| Decision Date | 09 October 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 20578,20578 |
| Citation | 215 Ga. 446,111 S.E.2d 32 |
| Parties | Eddle WILSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Vickers Neugent, Pearson, for plaintiff in error.
Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Rubye G. Jackson, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Eddie Wilson was convicted of murder, without recommendation to mercy. He duly filed his motion for new trial which was denied. The exception here is to the judgment denying a new trial. Held:
1. We deal first with the assignment of error complaining of the order denying the plea in abatement. The only question raised by the plea is that the indictment was not properly returned in open court, for the reason it was returned into court at a time when a case in which Judge Folks Huxford, the Judge of the Circuit in which the case was being tried, was disqualified and Judge George R. Lilly, Judge of another Circuit, was presiding. It is contended that it was not open court for the transaction of any business by the court except to try the case Judge Lilly was presiding in, in the absence of Judge Huxford. In so far as we have been able to determine, this precise question is one of first impression in this State. The plaintiff in error relies upon Sampson v. State, 124 Ga. 776, 53 S.E. 332, and Zugar v. State, 194 Ga. 285, 21 S.E.2d 647. The Sampson case was one in which the court had been adjourned until the next day, and no judge was present when the indictment was delivered to the clerk. The Zugar case, was one in which the grand-jury bailiff found the judge in the hall of the courthouse building and they went together and delivered the indictment to the clerk in his office. Each of these cases holds that a plea in abatement raising the question that the indictment was not properly returned in open court should have been sustained. It is readily apparent that both of these cases are entirely different from the instant case on the facts. In the instant case, the indictment was delivered to the clerk by the grand-jury bailiff in the courtroom at a time when court was actually in session in the progress of the trial of a case. The only question raised was that a visiting judge was presiding because of the disqualification of the judge of the circuit as to the case then on trial. We can see no possible injury that could have resulted to the plaintiff in error or anyone else by reason of the delivery of the indictment as was done in the instant case. We therefore hold that the indictment was properly returned in open court, and that it was not error to deny the plea in abatement.
2. In so far as the general grounds are concerned, we deem it sufficient to say that the evidence amply authorized the verdict.
3. Special ground 4 complains because a mortician who embalmed the body of the deceased was permitted, after describing the wound, to give his opinion as to what caused the death of the deceased. 'One who is not an expert or a practicing physician may, after describing the wound, give his opinion that it caused death.' Pinson v. State, 184 Ga. 333(1), 191 S.E. 95. It follows, there is no merit in this contention.
4. Special ground 5 complains because of the refusal to give a requested charge on the defense of accident, it being contended that the charge given on this subject was negative and did not fully cover the subject. The charge as given reads as follows:
'Now, gentlemen, if you find that the alleged homicide was the result of misfortune or accident, and it satisfactorily appears that the homicide did not result from the culpable neglect alleged in the indictment, then, you would not find the defendant guilty.
'The degree of culpability to sustain a conviction must be such as in your opinion amounts to gross negligence. What constitutes such culpable negligence is a question for the jury to determine from all the facts and circumstances surrounding the occasion under investigation.
'For the defendant to avail himself of the defense of doing what he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thacker v. State
...or not the trial judge's response to the request for a recharge was properly phrased as a matter of law (as to this see Wilson v. State, 215 Ga. 446(7), 111 S.E.2d 32 and cit.) or whether or not harmful error affirmatively appears. "The accused and his counsel have the right to be present a......
-
Henderson v. State
...return of the indictment and, in open court, may take the indictment from the bailiff and hand it to the judge. See Wilson v. State, 215 Ga. 446, 111 S.E.2d 32 (1959). It is not necessary for us to decide whether, assuming the facts to be as defendant alleges, the motion was properly denied......
-
Powers v. State
...offense. This enumeration is controlled adversely to appellant by Lamar v. State, 243 Ga. 401, 254 S.E.2d 353. See also Wilson v. State, 215 Ga. 446(6), 111 S.E.2d 32. As "(a)n enumeration of error cannot be enlarged to include other issues not made therein" (Reese v. State, 139 Ga.App. 630......
-
Powers v. State, No. 57250
...offense. This enumeration is controlled adversely to appellant by Lamar v. State, 243 Ga. 401, 254 S.E.2d 353. See also Wilson v. State, 215 Ga. 446(6), 111 S.E.2d 32. As "(a)n enumeration of error cannot be enlarged to include other issues not made therein" (Reese v. State, 139 Ga.App. 630......