Swint v. State

127 S.E. 459, 160 Ga. 148, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 104
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMarch 12, 1925
DocketNo. 4627
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 127 S.E. 459 (Swint 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
Swint v. State, 127 S.E. 459, 160 Ga. 148, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 104 (Ga. 1925).

Opinion

Hill, J.

Will Swint was indicted and tried for the offense of “felony,” the indictment alleging that on the 15th day of April, 1924, the defendant did “unlawfully and with force and arms, wilfully and maliciously destroy and injure the dwelling of John W. Bobo, by and with the use of dynamite, powder, nitroglycerine, and with other specific substances to the grand jurors unknown, the said John W. Bobo then and there and at said time residing in said dwelling-house and the [149]*149said dwelling-house not then and there being located in any town or city.” The jury found the defendant guilty, and recommended him to the mercy of the court; and he.was sentenced to life imprisonment. He made a motion for new trial, which was overruled, and he excepted. On the trial the State relied for conviction upon a written confession signed by the defendant, and corroborating circumstances and facts independently of the confession, to establish the corpus délicti. The confession was as follows: “I am making this affidavit of my own free will and accord, without any fear of punishment or hope of reward, and freely and voluntarily. I have not been promised any aid, assistance, or help in any way, or by any officer of the court, in any matters now pending or may hereafter pend in any court or in any other matter. I want to tell the whole truth, and am going to tell it now. In the beginning, I saw Frank Williams, Carl Lemaster, and Walt Hedgepath in Hedgepath’s car about 7 o’clock p. m., Monday, April 14, 1924, coming down the old Lindale pike to 12th street, turn and go toward South Rome. The next time I saw them was about 8:30 p. m. They drove up to Williams’ store, got out, and stood near Adams’ shop where I was, but they could not see me. They stood there discussing plans to blow up Bobo’s house, and while there took a drink of whisky, then all three of them went into the stand and got something to drink, and possibly something to eat. I came out and went to Hedgepath’s car and looked in it. I saw laying on the front seat four sticks of dynamite and four or five feet of fuse. About this time Walt Hedgepath walked up, and I asked him, 'What are you doing with dynamite ?’ and at this time Frank Williams walked up, and Hedgepath said, 'We are going to have some fun,’ and Williams said, 'We are going to blow hell out of John Bobo’s house.’ They asked me if I didn’t want to go with them. I told them I could not go, that it was too early, and had a date also. I gave them a drink, and they soon left. I met them again when they drove up to Williams’ stand about 11:30 p. m., and they asked me again to go with them. I told them no, that it was too early, but I would go a little piece with them, and I got on the running-board and we went down the Lindale pike towards Lindale, and we talked' it over and planned it all together, and Frank and Carl said they would do it. At this time I noticed they had two sticks of dynamite fixed with fuses, but I did not see [150]*150the other two sticks any more that I first saw. I got off the car near old man Sanders’ house, and went up to the harn where I was to meet May Cox. .They were to come back after me at 12:30 and blow their horn and let me know it was them; and it was about this time when they returned for me. I got in the car and we drove down the Lindale pike, and driving slowly and quietly when we stopped 50 -yards from John Bobo’s house. Frank and Carl got out, leaving me in the front seat and Hedgepath driving, with the understanding that the doors were to stay open and Hedge-path was to start the motor when we would see them strike the matches down close to Bobo’s house in the yard. Carl and Frank each threw a stick of dynámite, one under and one on the porch, and I could see the lighted fuse sparked like a firecracker. Carl and Frank hurried down and got in the car, and we drove rapidly away. We were some distance away when we heard the explosion, and both seemed to go off about the same time. We drove down the road about one mile, turned out to the left, crossed to the Carters-ville pike toward Borne; upon our arrival at 14th street I got out at the little blacksmith-shop, went down l'4th street on around home and got there about 1:25 a. m. Before 6 o’clock the morning of April 15th (Tuesday) a long, tall fellow came to my house and wanted a drink of whisky, and I gave him a drink, and then went down to Williams’ stand and I saw Frank Williams, Carl Lemaster, and Walt Hedgepath all seated on the porch, and Hedge-path’s car was standing near by. Carl said, ‘Give me a drink, we have been up all night and have not been to sleep the whole night. I gave Carl and Frank a drink. Walt said he did not want á drink, because he was feeling sick at his stomach from being up all night. I asked them what luck, and they said, ‘Don’t think we did much good.’ I have told all, and am not trying to keep anything back. This is the first time I ever saw dynamite used, and have never used any, and know nothing about how to use it. Hedgepath said the dynamite they had came from the chain-gang-camp.”

So far as material here, the court charged the jury as follows: “The State contends that it has proved upon the part of the defendant a confession of his guilt.- You look and see what the evidence shows about that. I charge you that confessions should be scanned with care and should be received with great caution, [151]*151and that a confession alone will not authorize a conviction. A confession must be freely and voluntarily made; it must be made without the slightest hope of reward or the remotest fear of punishment. If there is the slightest hope of reward, or the remotest fear ■ of punishment, the confession is a nullity and amounts to nothing in law. So, under this rule, see whether he made a confession, see whether he did so freely and voluntarily, in the way I explained to you; and if you find he has, then the confession will go to you, along with all the other evidence in the case, to aid you, if it does aid you, in determining whether the defendant in the case is or is not guilty. If you find there was no confession made, you will not consider the evidence relating to it; if you find there was a confession, then consider it with the law I shall now give you in charge, in determining whether the defendant is guilty or not. As I stated a moment ago, this defendant is indicted for the offense of using dynamite to destroy a home, to injure or destroy the home of Mr. Bobo; and in this connection, I give you this law 'in charge: The wilful and malicious destroying or injuring any dwelling-house, storehouse, barn, depot, and other place of business or lodging place of any person, wherein any person shall lodge or reside, or so nearly connected therewith as to endanger the life of any person being or so dwelling therein, not within the .limits of any city or town, with or by the use of dynamite, powder, nitroglycerine, or any other explosive substance or compound, shall be punished "with death, or the punishment may be commuted in conformity with section 63 of this code. So, look to the evidence and see whether this defendant' wilfully and maliciously (both those things must appear) did injure or destroy the dwelling-house mentioned in the indictment. If so, he would be guilty; otherwise he would not be guilty. In determining whether or not this defendant is or is not guilty,' I charged you a moment ago that he could not be convicted upon his uncorroborated confession, if he made a confession; that a confession alone would not authorize a conviction.

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

Related

H. L. B. v. State
135 Ga. App. 474 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1975)
Davis v. State
113 S.E.2d 458 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1960)
Burns v. State
2 S.E.2d 627 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Odum v. State
190 S.E. 25 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 S.E. 459, 160 Ga. 148, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swint-v-state-ga-1925.