Wimis v. State, 21015
| Decision Date | 06 October 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 21015,21015 |
| Citation | 116 S.E.2d 547,216 Ga. 350 |
| Parties | Oscar James WIMIS v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and no error is shown in the denial of the motion for new trial as amended.
Oscar James Wimis was convicted of murder without a recommendation of mercy. His motion for new trial on the general grounds, which was amended by the addition of three special grounds, was denied, and the exception is to this judgment.
The deceased was a storekeeper, and his death was caused by multiple head injuries. The defendant was identified by two persons, who testified that they saw him come out of the store of the deceased on the morning of the homicide. A police officer testified that the defendant in his presence, admitted the homicide, such admission containing no circumstances of justification. This officer testified that a written statement giving a similar account of the homicide was read to the defendant (who could not read), and was acknowledged by him to be true; and this statement was read in evidence. Certain circumstantial evidence was introduced, connecting the defendant with the homicide.
In his statement to the jury, the defendant said that he went into the store to pay the deceased a part of $5 that he owed him; that the deceased told him that he would not get out of there alive, and the deceased put his hand on his apron; that he did not know what the deceased had, and he hit the deceased.
Wm. T. Brooks, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Paul Webb, Sol. Gen., John W. Walton, Eubene L. Tiller, Atlanta, Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Rubye G. Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
1. The first special ground of the motion for new trial contends that it was error to admit the testimony of J. W. Moore, offered by the State as an expert witness for the purpose of comparison of fingerprints of the defendant with those found on a broken bottle, over the objection that this witness was not qualified as an expert to compare fingerprints.
This witness was thoroughly examined as to his qualifications, and the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing the witness to testify as an expert on the subject of the comparison of fingerprints. See Glover v. State, 129 Ga. 717(9), 59 S.E. 816; Carter v. Marble Products, 179 Ga. 122, 124, 175 S.E. 480.
2. Ground 2 asserts that the following evidence was illegally admitted to the jury: 'A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wilbur
...discussion in Underhill's Criminal Evidence, 5th Ed., Vol. 3, Sec. 656, Page 1588; 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 876 p. 452; Wimis v. State (1960) 216 Ga. 350, 116 S.E.2d 547; State v. Willis (1969) 4 N.C.App. 641, 167 S.E.2d '6. That the court erred in admitting State's Exhibit No. 37.' This ex......
-
Daniel v. State
...as he explains the reasons for that opinion. This agent explained that he had received training in blood analysis. Wimis v. State, 216 Ga. 350, 352(3), 116 S.E.2d 547 (1960); Wright v. State, 220 Ga.App. 233, 234(2), 469 S.E.2d 381 (1996). 6. Daniel enumerates as error a portion of the pros......
-
Carter v. State, 34218
...a police officer to testify as to his opinion that the substance on a washcloth found at the scene looked like blood. Wimis v. State, 216 Ga. 350, 116 S.E.2d 547 (1960). 3. The evidence is sufficient to support the verdict of Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. ...
- Martin v. Harris, 21010