Gossett v. State

48 S.E.2d 71, 203 Ga. 692, 1948 Ga. LEXIS 389
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMay 17, 1948
Docket16054.
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 48 S.E.2d 71 (Gossett v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gossett v. State, 48 S.E.2d 71, 203 Ga. 692, 1948 Ga. LEXIS 389 (Ga. 1948).

Opinion

1. The defendant was convicted of the alleged murder of Leroy Hill by intentionally administering to him poisons, which he did swallow and take internally and which did cause and produce his death on February 13, 1946. The defendant's motion for a new trial as amended was overruled, and she excepted. The evidence, though circumstantial in nature — relating, among other things, to conduct and statements of the defendant before and after the death of the deceased (husband of the defendant), medicine given to him by the defendant, his complaints and symptoms during his illness, and conditions found in his vital organs on autopsy — authorized a finding that the defendant killed the deceased by poisoning him with arsenic, and was sufficient to support the material allegations of the indictment. It also authorized a finding that the motive of the defendant was the collection of insurance which had been issued upon the life of the deceased, in favor of the defendant as beneficiary.

2. It also appeared from the evidence that the defendant's father and mother died on April 3 and July 13, respectively, in 1945, and that after the death of the defendant's husband the bodies of the parents were exhumed and vital organs of each were examined. The evidence further authorized a finding that each of them died of arsenic poison intentionally administered by the defendant, as in the case of her husband, and that her acts with respect to them were prompted by the same motive, to wit, collection of life insurance. *Page 693

3. In special grounds 3 to 11 inclusive of her motion for new trial, the defendant assigned error upon the admission of evidence touching the circumstances and causes of the deaths of her parents, over the objection that such evidence tended to establish independent crimes and was irrelevant, immaterial, and prejudicial, the defendant being on trial only for the alleged killing of Leroy Hill. Held:

(a) Evidence of the commission of one crime is not admissible on the trial of the defendant for another crime, where the sole purpose is to show that the defendant is guilty of such other crime; but such evidence is admissible where there is some logical connection between the two from which it can be said that proof of the one tends to establish the other. Cawthon v. State, 119 Ga. 395 (5) (46 S.E. 897); Wilson v. State, 173 Ga. 275 (2) (160 S.E. 319); Barkley v. State, 190 Ga. 641 (2) (10 S.E.2d 32).

(b) The evidence objected to, being of the general nature indicated in paragraph 2 above, was relevant for the purpose of showing plan, scheme, and motive with respect to the crime charged, and the court did not err in admitting it. See generally, in this connection, Code, § 38-202; Suber v. State, 176 Ga. 525 (1) (168 S.E. 585); Tucker v. State, 180 Ga. 87 (1) (178 S.E. 152); Emmett v. State, 195 Ga. 517 (3) (25 S.E.2d 9); Andrews v. State, 196 Ga. 84 (4) (26 S.E.2d 263); Fuller v. State, 197 Ga. 714 (1) (30 S.E.2d 608).

4. In a felony case, as distinguished from civil and misdemeanor cases, it is not error for the court to refuse a motion to purge the jury as to disqualification before beginning to select a jury for trial of the case, the statutes on the subject as applied to felony cases being different from those in reference to civil and misdemeanor cases. As to the former, see Code, §§ 59-801, 59-802, 59-804, 59-806; as to the latter, Code §§ 59-704, 59-705. In felony cases, the question as to competency and impartiality is one to be determined after the process of selecting a jury has commenced; and, after verdict, it is the disqualification itself, if it exists, and not the refusal to purge the entire panel at the beginning, of which complaint may be made. See, in this connection, Carter v. State, 106 Ga. 372 (6) (32 S.E. 345, 71 Am. St. R. 262); Whitworth v. State, 155 Ga. 395 (1) (117 S.E. 450); Atlanta Coach Co. v. Cobb, 17S Ga. 544, 555 (174 S.E. 131); Dees v. State, 41 Ga. App. 321 (1) (152 S.E. 913). While such preliminary inquiry is frequently made, "and is doubtless a salutary practice, it is not a right which is given by law to the defendant" in a felony case. Atlanta Coach Co. v. Cobb, supra.

(a) It follows that the court did not err in refusing a request of the defendant's counsel, made before selection of the jury had begun, to purge the jury and to declare disqualified any and all jurors who may have held policies in or who may have been employed by a named mutual insurance company, in which the defendant's father held a policy payable to her and the proceeds of which she collected after his death, and to which same company, as the evidence tended to show, she had caused her husband to apply for insurance upon his own life (which, however, was never issued).

5. Nor did the court err in refusing to grant a new trial upon the alleged *Page 694 ground that two of the jurors who tried the case were disqualified for reasons indicated in paragraph 4 (a), supra, since the only attempted proof in support of such alleged disqualification consisted of affidavits of the jurors themselves, and the verdict which they had returned could not be impeached by them. Code, § 110-109; Bowden v. State, 126 Ga. 578 (1) (55 S.E. 499); Atlanta Coach Co. v. Cobb, 178 Ga. 544, 552, (174 S.E. 131); Peagler v. Huey, 183 Ga. 677 (3) (188 S.E. 906); Thompson v. State, 4 Ga. App. 649 (5) (62 S.E. 99); McCarty v. Mobley, 14 Ga. App. 225 (1) (80 S.E. 523); Cobb v. Atlanta Coach Co., 46 Ga. App. 633 (168 S.E. 126).

(a) Since, as ruled above, jurors by whose affidavits the defendant sought to prove the claimed disqualification could not thereby impeach their verdict, no ruling is necessary and none is made as to whether jurors holding policies in such insurance company, or related to policyholders, would have been disqualified under the facts of the case.

6.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

JAIME HOFFMAN v. SOUTHEASTERN OB/GYN CENTER, LLC
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2026
Vaughn v. State
294 S.E.2d 504 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1982)
Carter v. State
183 S.E.2d 392 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1971)
Law v. State
173 S.E.2d 98 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1970)
Dozier v. State
167 S.E.2d 670 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1969)
Anderson v. State
150 S.E.2d 638 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1966)
Zurich Insurance Co. v. Zerfass
128 S.E.2d 75 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1962)
Williams Bros. Grocery Co. v. Blanton
124 S.E.2d 479 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1962)
Lyles v. State
215 Ga. 229 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1959)
State v. Gossett
108 S.E.2d 272 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1959)
Clements v. State
105 S.E.2d 725 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1958)
Waller v. State
99 S.E.2d 113 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1957)
Fields v. Balkcom
89 S.E.2d 189 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1955)
White v. State
82 S.E.2d 498 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1954)
Bennett v. State
70 S.E.2d 882 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
Hodges v. State
85 Ga. App. 617 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
Reece v. State
69 S.E.2d 92 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1952)
Mixon v. State
63 S.E.2d 294 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1951)
Barton v. State
60 S.E.2d 173 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1950)
Williams v. State
58 S.E.2d 840 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
48 S.E.2d 71, 203 Ga. 692, 1948 Ga. LEXIS 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gossett-v-state-ga-1948.