McCormick v. State

166 S.E. 762, 176 Ga. 21, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 374
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedNovember 17, 1932
DocketNo. 9294
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 166 S.E. 762 (McCormick 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
McCormick v. State, 166 S.E. 762, 176 Ga. 21, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 374 (Ga. 1932).

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

T. Y. McCormick, Gene West, and Charley West were jointly charged in an indictment with the murder of Henry Hobbs. McCormick severed on the trial, was convicted with recommendation, and assigns error upon the overruling of his motion for new trial.

On the trial evidence of the sayings of a third party jointly indicted with the accused for the offense, made in the presence of the accused, and of the failure of the accused to admit or deny the truth thereof, was admitted. In the motion for new trial error is assigned on the following ground: “State's counsel asked said witness [Max Smith] the following question: ‘In the presence of T. Y. McCormick what did Gene [West] say T. Y. had tó do with this killing?' Whereupon the defendant objected to said question at the time it was asked, and then and there urged before the court the following grounds of objection, namely: ‘We object to that. It appears that the defendant at that time was in the common jail of this county. He was in confinement; and further that the State's prosecuting attorney took the deputy sheriff of the county, the said witness Max Smith being the deputy sheriff of Wilcox County, and had a conversation inside of the prison; that would not be binding upon the defendant. He had nobody present to look alter his interests. We do not think he could be bound by some statement these folks went to the jail and made in his pres[23]*23ence at a time when he could not help himself.’ Whereupon the court overruled said objections and permitted said witness to testifjq over said objections, as follows: £In the presence of T. Y. McCormick, Gene West said that T. Y. brought this negro to his house and told him that this is Frank Duberry, the negro that killed his brother. He said after he had shot this negro after Gene shot him that T. Y. went in his pockets, then they took him down and buried him out in the yard; T. Y. put a rope around him and then took him and buried him. T. Y. didn’t say anything at the time, made no denial.’ It is argued in the motion for a new trial that the evidence was material, prejudicial, and hurtful to the movant, for the reason that said testimony led the jury to believe that the statements made'by said Gene West, who was an alleged conspirator with the defendant, in the presence of said defendant would amount to an incriminatory admission on the part of the defendant by his silence, and that said statement made by Gene West was true. Movant avers that the inadmissibility of the evidence was beyond a doubt, for the reasons stated in the objections to the question when the same was propounded to said witness; and movant avers that the court erred in permitting said witness to testify as herein set out over said objections.” The court did not err in admitting the evidence over the objections. None of the objections actually presented at the time the evidence was offered show any legally sufficient objection.

Headnotes 2, 3, 4, and 5 do not require elaboration.

The evidence for the State authorized the jury to find the facts as stated hereinafter. The deceased died as a result of a gunshot wound in the back, fired at close range. He had been dead about three weeks, and the body had begun to decompose when disinterred, and an inquest was held to determine the cause of death. The body had been buried in overalls, blue serge pants and pinkish looking shirt, pin-stripe, without shoes or socks. The improvised grave was in a pasture, a short distance from the house occupied by Gene and Charley West, in Wilcox County. Henry Hobbs had been missing from his home since November 29, 1931. The indictment alleges that he was killed on November 30. Fanny Hobbs, wife of Henry, before the dead body was taken from the grave a second time, described her husband to the coroner. After the disinterment Fanny identified the deceased as Henry Hobbs, [24]*24her husband, by the fact that the clothes on the body were the same clothes worn by him when he left home on November 29, “and because of his teeth. He had one gold crown to the right; then he had an open space where had been bridge-work. He had had the bridge-work taken out. You could see in his mouth the skin had left his mouth. That gold tooth in the body of that man was like it was in Henry; that open space was there too. I am absolutely sure that was my husband, Henry Hobbs.” Fanny also identified the deceased as her husband by the shape of his feet. Henry Hobbs had sixteen dollars on his person when he left home. Human bloodstains were found on the floor of the house where the homicide occurred.

In addition to the above, the following facts were sworn to: Gene West, who was admittedly an accomplice, testified that McCormick came with Hobbs to the home of the Wests about dark, November 30; that McCormick told witness that Hobbs was the man who had killed a brother of the Wests, and told witness “to get some shells and bring them back there for him to kill him, lie wanted shells to shoot this man to get his money;” that witness had a gun, but did not have shells; that he “went to Mr. Helms and got shells from his boy;” that when he returned “Hobbs was lying down on the floor . . in the kitchen;” that McCormick “had already got the gun out of the house;” that McCormick told witness to shoot him and get his money; that witness shot him, and he died right then; that McCormick then took from the body some money and an automatic pistol; that witness and McCormick then carried the body to a point some distance from the house; that while they were burying the body and after it had been covered with dirt, Charley West came along as he was returning home from the home of a neighbor, where he had gone after McCormick, and Hobbs appeared at the home of the Wests; and that Charley West was compelled by McCormick to assist in completing the burial. Charley West, who denied that he was an accomplice, testified that lie was at the house when McCormick came there with Hobbs; that he left within a few minutes after they arrived, and went to a neighbor’s house about half a mile away; that when he left home his brother had one shell; that when he had gone about half a mile from home he heard a gun fire; that he returned in about an hour, and McCormick and his brother Gene were filling dirt into [25]*25a hole as he passed along on his return; that he did not know what was in the hole; that McCormick compelled him, under threats, to assist in filling the hole with dirt.

The defendant made the following statement to the jury: “I am not guilty in this case. I met this strange man about first dark one night. lie questioned me how far was Finleyson. I told him it was between nine and ten miles. He said, 'I been walking all day,’ was tired; said, 'Where is the closest colored folks?’ I told him Gene and Charlie West lived about a half mile. He said, 'Is he married ?’ I told him yes, but his wife wasn’t home. He said, 'Beckon I could spend the night there?’ I said, 'I don’t know.’ We goes there. I goes in with him. Charlie and Gene West were getting supper. He asked him, said, 'I am tired, I am traveling;’ said 'Could I spend the night?’ said, ‘You wouldn’t have to prepare me a bed, just anywhere in the house out of the weather will do.’ Gene said, 'Yes, you can stay.’ I holds a little talk, leaves, and goes home. When I gets home Amelia and Willie Byals were at home. We stays around there until ten or eleven o’clock. I goes to bed. That is all I know about it. I am not guilty of that case. I don’t know nothing about it.”

It is insisted that the verdict is not supported by evidence. The substance of the evidence, and the statement in hsec verba, are set out above.

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

Related

Elliott v. State
824 S.E.2d 265 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2019)
Slocumb v. State
296 S.E.2d 409 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
Eubanks v. State
242 S.E.2d 41 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1978)
Dixon v. State
240 S.E.2d 302 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)
Baker v. State
233 S.E.2d 347 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1977)
Hackney v. State
211 S.E.2d 714 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1975)
Park v. State
162 S.E.2d 359 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1968)
Williams v. State
149 S.E.2d 449 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1966)
Ingram v. State
48 S.E.2d 891 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1948)
Dowis v. State
39 S.E.2d 413 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1946)
Emmett v. State
195 Ga. 517 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1943)
Sconyers v. State
21 S.E.2d 504 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Bryant v. State
16 S.E.2d 241 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1941)
Jenkins v. State
9 S.E.2d 909 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Lanier v. State
1 S.E.2d 405 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Daniels v. State
199 S.E. 572 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1938)
Walker v. State
197 S.E. 67 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1938)
West v. State
170 S.E. 233 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
166 S.E. 762, 176 Ga. 21, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccormick-v-state-ga-1932.