Hayden v. StateHayden v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Wyatt
1. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence.
2. Grounds 4, 5 and 6 of the motion for a new trial complain of the refusal of the trial judge to exclude testimony. In each of these grounds this statement occurs: “The court erred in permitting the witness for the State, over objection of defendant‘s counsel, to testify as follows.” It does not appear in the motion or elsewhere in the record what objections were offered to the testimony contained in these grounds of the motion. This being true, nothing is presented to this court for decision. Clifton v. State, 187 Ga. 502 (3) (2 S.E. 2a, 102); Norman v. McMillan, 151 Ga. 363 (4) (107 S.E. 325); Hardy v. Hardy, 149 Ga. 371 (3) (100 S.E. 101); Edenfield v. Brinson, 149 Ga. 377 (4) (100 S.E. 373); Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. James, 143 Ga. 753 (2) (85 S.E. 920).
3. Grounds 7 and 8 of the motion complain because the trial judge did not declare a mistrial, without a motion therefor by counsel for the plaintiff in error, because the “father of the deceased, James Riley, who was sitting with the solicitor-general, suddenly stood up in the courtroom, looking toward defendant‘s counsel in a menacing manner, with one hand in his pocket as if to draw a weapon.” After this occurrence, the judge ordered the sheriff to evict the father from the courtroom, and instructed the jury to disregard the occurrence. Under these circumstances, no error appears from what occurred. See Hendrix v. State, 173 Ga. 419, 420 (160 S.E. 614), and cit.
4. Ground 9 of the motion complains of the following excerpt from the charge of the court: “One cannot create an emergency which renders
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
Bennie Hayden was indicted, tried, and convicted, without a recommendation, of the murder of James Riley, and was sentenced to be electrocuted. He filed his motion for a new trial on the general grounds, and by amendment added six special grounds numbered four to nine. His motion was overruled, and he excepted to that judgment.
The evidence adduced for the State was, in substance, as follows:
Mary Nell Riley testified that she was the wife of James Riley, the deceased; that on July 19, 1944, at about eight o‘clock that night, the defendant came to the home of her mother-in-law, Mrs. N. L. Riley; that, when the defendant arrived, he got out of a car and came in the yard and called her husband outside and talked to him, but she did not hear the conversation; that, when her husband finished talking to the defendant, he came back on the porch, and she then went out on the porch, where her husband and Mrs. N. L. Riley were already standing; that the defendant came to the door and said he had the children in the car, and Mrs. N. L. Riley said, “Go and get them, Bennie, and let them come here; I want to see them;” that the little girl was asleep, and the defendant said to her, “You are at Mamma Riley‘s don‘t you want to see her?” and she said, “Yes;” that the car was parked by the side of the road, about twenty feet from the screened porch; that the defendant took the little girl out of the car and put her on the ground; that there were some steps leading from where the car was parked to the porch, and the defendant “set the little girl down on the ground by the stairs;” that she did not see the defendant get his gun; that he “shot us when he put the
On cross-examination, this witness testified that she and her husband went to the home of Mrs. N. L. Riley on Monday, and that the defendant‘s wife came to the Riley home Tuesday morning, the day before her husband shot James Riley; that she and James Riley stayed most of the time with Mrs. N. L. Riley and some of the time at the defendant‘s house, and she called Mrs. N. L. Riley‘s home her home; that, when the defendant called her husband outside the house and talked to him, the defendant did not have a gun or anything at that time; that the defendant‘s wife was inside the house at the time; that it is not true that her husband shot at the defendant from the porch; that she never heard but one shot which was fired by her husband.
L. W. Howard testified that he had occasion to investigate the
E. S. Gordon testified that in his official capacity as sheriff he
Mrs. N. L. Riley testified as follows: “I remember the night that James Riley was killed. The first time that night I saw Bennie, he came to the door and wanted to get in the house; he came there in the car, and I went and called to James to come out there. . . I went out there before James went out there, but I didn‘t stay long. I did not hear any of the conversation out there. When James came back on the porch, he came back in the house, and Bennie came back, and I stayed there and talked to Bennie on the porch. The porch door was latched. James was right behind me. . . As to what we talked about, he wanted to get in the house, and I asked him if he had a gun or knife or anything, and he said he didn‘t have anything. . . He said he wanted to talk to Givens and wanted her to come out to the car. Givens was in the house, but he didn‘t know she was in there. . . As to what else was said between me and Bennie, he said he had both babies out there . . and I said, `Bring them and let me see them.’ . . He went out to the car, and he said to her, `Wake up, you are at Mamma Riley‘s,’ and he reached and got his gun; he got out the baby and the gun and shot James and Mary Nell. He set the baby out in the yard. I saw him set her down. When he got the gun, he did not advance towards the house; I was standing waiting for the baby and didn‘t see the gun. I did not see the
Dr. H. A. Miller testified that he is a practicing physician; that he had occasion to treat the wounds of Mrs. N. L. Riley, Mrs. James Riley, and Bennie Hayden at a hospital around nine o‘clock on the night that James Riley was killed; that he smelled liquor on the defendant, but didn‘t know whether the drinking took place before or after the shooting. The witness testified as to the nature of the injuries to Mrs. N. L. Riley and Mrs. James Riley, and testified with reference to the injuries to the defendant: “His injury was to his hand and to his left thigh and the right wrist. He was shot with a shotgun, bird shot. From my examination of his injuries, I would say that he was shot only once.”
The defendant made a lengthy statement to the jury, in which he recounted the hardships of his life and many abuses and ill treatment by his wife and her father, and stated that his wife was the cause of his present trouble. He stated: “One night I was coming home from work, and this boy, Curtis Bowen, was over there to the other side of my house. I didn‘t think anything of him being at my house or nothing, and I saw car tracks from my yard, so I asked my wife if Curtis had been over there, and she said, `Hell, no,’ just like that. . . That was on the fifth of July. . . I said, `Givens, you have told me a story,’ just like that, and she lit on me, cursing me out, and me and her had a little argument, and she called me `vile names’ and I slapped her, and I said I had seen his track and she said it wasn‘t his track in my yard. Then, on the 17th of July . . my automobile chocked down, and this boy, Curtis Bowen, stopped at Ed Blackburn‘s, neighbors that live close to me, and I seen Curtis, and he says, `I am in an awful hurry to get home,’ and I said, `I have got to go off a little piece, what about pushing me off?’ and I went to a cross road and parked my automobile . . and I walked to my house, and there was Curtis Bowen sitting huddled up with my wife, and I said, `Get your damned self off my porch,’ and I knowed him, and he was sitting there hugging my wife, and he jumped off the porch, and I got my knife out and tried to cut him, and he knocked me in the head, and he told the old lady to
Curtis Bowen, a witness for the State, testified that he had never had any intimate relations with the defendant‘s wife; that he knew the defendant‘s wife well enough to call her by her given name; that on the night that the defendant claimed to have caught his wife and the witness together, the witness had pushed the defendant‘s car into the yard, had started home in his own automobile, and discovered that he was about to have a flat tire; that he returned to the defendant‘s home for the purpose of borrowing a tire pump, and after he got into the yard, and while the defendant‘s wife was on the porch, the defendant came out and said, “Damn you, you came to see my wife;” and the defendant cut him, and the witness hit the defendant and caught his arm; that there was never anything improper between the defendant‘s wife and the witness, but that the defendant did accuse him of being intimate with his wife.