170 Ga. 343 | Ga. | 1930
Frank Bush was convicted in the superior court of Terrell County upon two indictments charging him with murder, the jury recommending in each ease that he be confined in the penitentiary for life. He made a motion for a new trial in each case. Both motions were overruled, and the present writs of error challenge those judgments. There is no exception to the charge of the court, and no complaint as to any ruling made by the judge during the course of the trial. The motions for a new trial, being based solely upon the general grounds, present the single question as to whether the evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to find the defendant guilty. In one indictment the accused is charged with having killed Ollie Bushj or Moreland, and in the other with the murder of Wiley Wiggins. Wiley Wiggins and Ollie Moreland were evidently shot to death at the same time. Within a very short time after the killing their bodies were found in close proximity. Ollie was already dead. Wiggins, though still breathing, expired shortly after witnesses came upon the scene. The convic
After a careful reading and rereading of the record in this case, I am compelled to say that the case is a most mysterious one; but after all, as said by Chief Justice Bleckley, the jury is the best doctor of doubt, and we can not say that the testimony of the witness Cannon is not more commanding and controlling than any theory that can possibly be suggested as compatible with the theory of the defendant’s innocence. Coupled with this is one of the statements of the defendant at the trial, that “I took a whole lot from that same man [Wiggins] that night, because he had his pistol in his hand all the time, and I didn’t say nothing to him.” It is possible that the accused found Wiggins in the act of sexual intercourse with his former mistress, if indeed he did the killing; but this theory can not be indulged, because it is entirely unsupported by the evidence of any witness, and is not even sanctioned by the defendant’s statement in his own behalf. Though the circumstances in proof are slight, they are sufficient, in our opinion, to authorize the verdicts returned by the jury. And the verdicts being approved by the judge who saw and heard all the witnesses and observed their motive and demeanor, this court can not say that he erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.