175 Ga. 307 | Ga. | 1932
J. E. Barbee was convicted of the offense of murder, and was sentenced to death by electrocution. He made a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and in his bill of exceptions he assigns error upon that judgment. The motion for new trial contains the three general grounds, and by amendment three special grounds were added. "W> shall first consider the general
“To Mrs. Delmar Cannon 1931 Mar 2 PM 2-21
“Street and No. 1534 Broadway. Place Macon Ga.
“Father seriously sick come at once. Mrs. J. F. Barbee.”
In the first instance complaint is made that the evidence is insufficient to connect the accused with the sending of the telegram. In the second instance it is alleged that the court erred in admitting the telegram, because, it “not having been addressed to Delmar Cannon and not having been signed by movant, the same was inadmissible as being irrelevant and immaterial, and that its introduction would be harmful to movant.”
The evidence which was before the jury, as testified by a number of witnesses, showed that immediately preceding and at the time of the homicide the killing was absolutely unjustified. A critical review of the evidence will not disclose any immediate provocation. The defendant in his statement declares that the deceased attacked, or was about to attack him with a large knife, and that he shot in self-defense, but the numerous eye-witnesses to the tragedy, without exception, disputed the statement of the accused — he stands alone, and it was within the province of the jury to believe the witnesses rather than the statement of the defendant. Counsel for plaintiff in error insist that the State’s counsel made the following contentions: “1. That beginning as far back as 1927 the defendant had maintained with his daughter incestuous relationship, which he de
In the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error it is said that “It is
There is no merit in the exception which complains that the court erred in failing to charge the jury upon the subject of involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter, whether it be the killing of a human being in the commission of an unlawful act, or the killing of a human being in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection, is the killing of a human being when there is no intention to kill. Not only the evidence, but the defendant’s statement, wholly contradicts the idea that the shooting
The third special ground of the motion for a new trial is as follows: “Movant says that the court erred in admitting in evidence over his counsel’s objection, made when same was offered, the following telegram:
“To Mrs. Delmar Cannon, ■ 1931 Mar 2PM 2-21
“Street and No. 1534 Broadway. Place Macon, Ga.
“Father seriously sick come at once. Mrs. J. F. Barbee.”
“By Mr. Boyer: I want to introduce this telegram which she says she received and same [came ?] in response to:
‘Keceived at Western Union Building, 455 Cherry St., Macon, Ga., 1931 Mar 2 PM 2 28. QA264 6 — Hawkinsville, Ga., 2 221P.
‘Mrs. Delmar Cannon, Macon, Ga.
‘Father seriously sick come at once. Mrs. J. F. Barbee.’
“Mr. Boyer: I tender the original telegram.
“Mr. Coates: I object to the telegram, upon the ground that the signature of the sender has not been proven. Mrs. J. F. Barbee purports to have sent it. She says a boy brought it there that she did not know.
“The court: The telegram would not be admissible unless they connect it up with the defendant.
“Mr. Coates: I object to it on that further ground.
“The court: Well, it will not be admitted unless you connect it up.
“Mr. Boyer: If I do not connect it up, I will withdraw it.”
Solicitor-general tendered in evidence, at the conclusion of the testimony of Joe Henderson, the original telegram referred to, as follows:
“To Mrs. Delmar Cannon, 1931 Mar 2PM 2-21
“Street and No. 1534 Broadway. Place Macon, Ga.
“Father seriously sick come at once. Mrs. J. F. Barbee.”
The second special ground of the motion for a new trial is as follows : “The objection of counsel for movant was that the telegram not having been addressed to Delmar Cannon and not having been signed by movant, the same was inadmissible as being irrelevant and immaterial, and that its introduction in evidence would be harmful
4. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.