Joyner v. StateJoyner v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Head
1. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the general grounds of the motion for new trial.
2. The 1st ground of the amеnded motion for new trial asserts that the trial court erred in failing to chargе the law of voluntary-manslaughter as it relates to mutual combat. It is stated that the defendant requested the court to charge this principle, but it appears that this request to charge was included in a request to chargе several principles of law, and that the request in regard to mutual combat was in the following language: “The defendant requests that the court charge as follows: ... 2. The law of voluntary manslaughter as it relates to mutual cоmbat.” This request is incomplete and insufficient to constitute a propеr request to charge. Smithwick v. State, 199 Ga. 292, 298 (34 S. E. 2d 28).
The trial judge charged the jury on the law of voluntary manslaughter. There was no evidence requiring a charge on the law of vоluntary manslaughter as related to mutual combat, and there was no errоr in overruling this ground.
3. Ground 2 complains of the admission in evidence of certаin photographs, and ground 3 asserts that it was error to allow these phоtographs to be taken to the jury room as part of the evidence in the case, over stated objections of the defendant. The photographs referred to in these grounds do not appear anywherе in the record, and it is impossible for this court to determine whether it was error for the trial court to allow their admission in evidence, or to permit thеm to be taken to the jury room, over the objections made. This ground, therefore, can not be considered. Smith v. State, 202 Ga. 851, 866 (12) (45 S. E. 2d 267); Darden v. State, 208 Ga. 599 (68 S. E. 2d 559).
4. The 4th ground .insists that the court erred in failing tо charge the jury “as to whether the statements made by the defendant to Captain Hallman were admissions or confession.” It is stated in this ground that, at the end of the charge, on the inquiry of the court if there was anything further, the State’s сounsel suggested to the court that no charge had been made on confessions or admissions, and that the court should ask the defendant’s counsel if he wanted a charge on confessions. Thereupon the court inquirеd of the defendant’s counsel if he had any statement to make in this regard, аnd counsel stated that he thought *271 it was the court’s duty to decide as a mattеr of law whether the statements were admissions or confessions. The court then stated, “Well, I think it is admitted by the defendant that he killed the man.”
There was no request to charge on confessions or admissions, and the complaint in this ground, in part, appears to be that the court did not denominate whethеr the statements made by the defendant to the police officer invеstigating the homicide were admissions or confessions. This court has held many timеs that the failure to charge on various aspects of the law in cоnnection with admissions and confessions will not require the grant of a new trial, where there has been no proper written request to charge. Walker v. State, 118 Ga. 34 (3) (44 S. E. 850); Patterson v. State, 124 Ga. 408 (2) (52 S. E. 534); Nail v. State, 125 Ga. 234 (3) (54 S. E. 145); Roberson v. State, 135 Ga. 654 (70 S. E. 175); Lindsay v. State, 138 Ga. 818 (6) (76 S. E. 369); Smith v. State, 139 Ga. 230 (2) (76 S. E. 1016); Cantrell v. State, 141 Ga. 98 (2) (80 S. E. 649); Benjamin v. State, 150 Ga. 78 (102 S. E. 427); Brown v. State, 154 Ga. 54 (113 S. E. 161); Green v. State, 154 Ga. 394 (114 S. E. 361); Gore v. State, 162 Ga. 267, 268 (134 S. E. 36). The сontention in this ground that a new trial should be granted because of the cоurt’s failure to instruct the jury as to whether the statements attributed to the defendаnt were admissions or confessions is without merit.
It is also contended in this ground that thе statement of the trial judge, “Well, I think it is admitted by the defendant that he killed the man,” made in connection with the discussion as to a charge on admissions or confessions, was an expression of an opinion before the jury. From аn examination of the record it appears that the defendant’s сounsel had previously stated to the court that his client was guilty of voluntary manslaughter; and the defendant in his statement had admitted that he killed the deceased. No reversible error is shown in this ground.
5. The 5th ground makes no valid assignment of error.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.