Smith v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Smith v. State

145 S.E. 517, 167 Ga. 271, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 136

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 14, 1928

DocketNo. 6429

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 145 S.E. 517 (Smith 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

Smith v. State, 145 S.E. 517, 167 Ga. 271, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 136 (Ga. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Hile, J.

1. The motion to continue the case is without merit, being substantially the same as in the case of Evans v. State, ante, 261.

2. Grounds of the motion for new trial assigning error on admitting certain testimony are substantially the same as in the case of Evans v. State, supra, and are without merit.

3. The evidence in this case is substantially the same as in the case of Evans v. State. The two cases were argued together. In addition to the evidence in that case, which showed that all of the five defendants who were indicted were at the place of the homicide when it was committed, there is in the present case evidence, of certain witnesses, who testified to threats made by the defendant against the life of the deceased. The admission of this evidence over objection was not error. It had some probative value as to motive, and was not inadmissible on account of the lapse of time (about one year or more) between the making of the threats and the time of the homicide. Shaw v. State, 60 Ga. 246 (2); Everett v. State, 62 Ga. 65 (2).

4. Where, on the trial of one charged with murder, the defendant made a statement in his own behalf, a refusal to allow the defendant to make an additional statement can not be held erroneous, where the motion for new trial fails to disclose what additional statement the accused desired to make. Peavy v. State, 114 Ga. 260 (40 S. E. 234).

5. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

All ike Justices concur, except Russell, O. J., who dissents.

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

Hile, J.

1. The motion to continue the case is without merit, being substantially the same as in the case of Evans v. State, ante, 261.

2. Grounds of the motion for new trial assigning error on admitting certain testimony are substantially the same as in the case of Evans v. State, supra, and are without merit.

3. The evidence in this case is substantially the same as in the case of Evans v. State. The two cases were argued together. In addition to the evidence in that case, which showed that all of the five defendants who were indicted were at the place of the homicide when it was committed, there is in the present case evidence, of certain witnesses, who testified to threats made by the defendant against the life of the deceased. The admission of this evidence over objection was not error. It had some probative value as to motive, and was not inadmissible on account of the lapse of time (about one year or more) between the making of the threats and the time of the homicide. Shaw v. State, 60 Ga. 246 (2); Everett v. State, 62 Ga. 65 (2).

4. Where, on the trial of one charged with murder, the defendant made a statement in his own behalf, a refusal to allow the defendant to make an additional statement can not be held erroneous, where the motion for new trial fails to disclose what additional statement the accused desired to make. Peavy v. State, 114 Ga. 260 (40 S. E. 234).

5. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

All ike Justices concur, except Russell, O. J., who dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 S.E. 517, 167 Ga. 271, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-state-ga-1928.

Opinion

5. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack