Hayden v. State

33 S.E.2d 258, 199 Ga. 11, 1945 Ga. LEXIS 253
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided February 17, 1945·No. 15062.·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

1. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence.

2. Grounds 4, 5 and 6 of the motion for a new trial complain of the refusal of the trial judge to exclude testimony. In each of these grounds this statement occurs: "The court erred in permitting the witness for the State, over objection of defendant's counsel, to testify as follows." It does not appear in the motion or elsewhere in the record what objections were offered to the testimony contained in these grounds of the motion. This being true, nothing is presented to this court for decision. Clifton v. State, 187 Ga. 502 (3) (2 S.E. 2a, 102); Norman v. McMillan, 151 Ga. 363 (4) (107 S.E. 325); Hardy v. Hardy, 149 Ga. 371 (3) (100 S.E. 101); Edenfield v. Brinson, 149 Ga. 377 (4) (100 S.E. 373); Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. James, 143 Ga. 753 (2) (85 S.E. 920).

3. Grounds 7 and 8 of the motion complain because the trial judge did not declare a mistrial, without a motion therefor by counsel for the plaintiff in error, because the "father of the deceased, James Riley, who was sitting with the solicitor-general, suddenly stood up in the courtroom, looking toward defendant's counsel in a menacing manner, with one hand in his pocket as if to draw a weapon." After this occurrence, the judge ordered the sheriff to evict the father from the courtroom, and instructed the jury to disregard the occurrence. Under these circumstances, no error appears from what occurred. See Hendrix v. State, 173 Ga. 419, 420 (160 S.E. 614), and cit.

4. Ground 9 of the motion complains of the following excerpt from the charge of the court: "One cannot create an emergency which renders *Page 12 it necessary for another to defend himself and then take advantage of such effort of such other person to do so;" the contention being that there was no evidence to authorize the charge on this subject, and that the charge had the effect of intimating to the jury that the defendant had created an emergency, which he took advantage of in shooting the deceased. The statement of facts following this syllabus opinion shows very clearly that there is no merit in this contention. See, in this connection, Daniel v. State, 187 Ga. 411 (1 S.E.2d 6).

Judgment affirmed. All the Justicesconcur.

No. 15062. FEBRUARY 17, 1945.
Bennie Hayden was indicted, tried, and convicted, without a recommendation, of the murder of James Riley, and was sentenced to be electrocuted. He filed his motion for a new trial on the general grounds, and by amendment added six special grounds numbered four to nine. His motion was overruled, and he excepted to that judgment.

The evidence adduced for the State was, in substance, as follows:

Mary Nell Riley testified that she was the wife of James Riley, the deceased; that on July 19, 1944, at about eight o'clock that night, the defendant came to the home of her mother-in-law, Mrs. N. L. Riley; that, when the defendant arrived, he got out of a car and came in the yard and called her husband outside and talked to him, but she did not hear the conversation; that, when her husband finished talking to the defendant, he came back on the porch, and she then went out on the porch, where her husband and Mrs. N. L. Riley were already standing; that the defendant came to the door and said he had the children in the car, and Mrs. N. L. Riley said, "Go and get them, Bennie, and let them come here; I want to see them;" that the little girl was asleep, and the defendant said to her, "You are at Mamma Riley's don't you want to see her?" and she said, "Yes;" that the car was parked by the side of the road, about twenty feet from the screened porch; that the defendant took the little girl out of the car and put her on the ground; that there were some steps leading from where the car was parked to the porch, and the defendant "set the little girl down on the ground by the stairs;" that she did not see the defendant get his gun; that he "shot us when he put the *Page 13 little girl down;" that the shot went through the screened porch, and went in the witness's stomach, leg, and hip; that she did not know whether the shot hit Mrs. N. L. Riley, but James Riley, the witness's deceased husband, holloed "oh," so she figured it hit him; that when the shot was fired, her husband had hold of her hand and was not trying to do anything to the defendant; that her husband dragged her inside the house, and they went between two beds and then to the kitchen, where her husband told them to lie down; that there were no electric lights in the house, but there was a lamp on the eating table; that, after they had gone into the kitchen, the defendant began shooting through a window, and she saw him try to get in a screened window; that she didn't know how many shots the defendant made; that Mrs. N. L. Riley went to another room and got shells for James Riley, the deceased, and James Riley got a gun; that she saw him shoot; that he was standing by a heater in the front room at the time; that she didn't see him at the time he shot, as she turned her head; that she didn't see him when he was shot the last time, but heard him hollo, and the witness slid on her hip to where her husband was near a bed; that, when the defendant went back to the car, Mrs. N. L. Riley called him and told him not to shoot any more; that "she went to the door and called him and said for him not to shoot any more, that he had killed us, and she went out the back door and went up the road;" that she heard her husband shoot only one time, and does not know how many shots were fired before her husband shot one time.

On cross-examination, this witness testified that she and her husband went to the home of Mrs. N. L. Riley on Monday, and that the defendant's wife came to the Riley home Tuesday morning, the day before her husband shot James Riley; that she and James Riley stayed most of the time with Mrs. N. L. Riley and some of the time at the defendant's house, and she called Mrs. N. L. Riley's home her home; that, when the defendant called her husband outside the house and talked to him, the defendant did not have a gun or anything at that time; that the defendant's wife was inside the house at the time; that it is not true that her husband shot at the defendant from the porch; that she never heard but one shot which was fired by her husband.

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

Hayden v. State, 33 S.E.2d 258, 199 Ga. 11, 1945 Ga. LEXIS 253 (Ga. 1945).

33 S.E.2d 258 (Hayden v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Whitus v. State
149 S.E.2d 130 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1966)
Domingo v. State
96 S.E.2d 896 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1957)