*1 April Decided Submitted Hollis, se. pro E. Charles v. THE STATE. ROBINSON Robinson, Jr. was indicted for Carlos Justice.
Nichols, robbery. Jerry armed He was tried jointly offense of both for such offense and was also indicted who over- motion for new were convicted. Robinson’s filed. There was evidence present appeal ruled and the were involved the armed that five persons adduced entered the of business place three who robbery, actually register the cash and from the person and took cash from business at The gun point. of the operator two, automo- the two tried remained Robinson’s yards away. parked approximately bile which was five in the automobile to robbery, After the proceeded Road, Place” on Pavo place known "Gikes’ of the who robbery. divided proceeds arrested, de- being had made a written confession after he stated the confession and contended nied knew nothing robbery. had and drinking been Held: of the co-defendant Timms was
1. The written confession A as to its admis- hearing admitted in separate evidence. jury, first outside the sibility presence had did not understand his and Timms testified that he while testimony examination his was such rights, yet on cross first the and then was authorized judge that read find did understand such as were rights that he him and him. voluntarily, that was made
After the statement testifying examination, that testified, on cross officer police if he truth. I Timms "asked me if would told the help said it has always been true that everybody has a suspect you, been with was this volun- or did . . I tary out it. told him that felt it for him go would be better ahead and tell the truth.” it is reply always better tell the truth was
not an such inducement as is demanded to invalidate the confession. v. State, Hicks Ga. 561 Compare 178 (173 395); State, 462, SE McLemore v. 181 Ga. 471 (182 634). 618, However, SE 102 ALR remaining the language "everybody has sus been, pect was this did voluntarily get or have to out and prove it” cannot be said not to hold out a special of reward if by consideration the suspect and it not cooperates, necessary was officer get the prove out and the suspect’s crime, involvement fear, if confession, convicted without the and the officer did have to out and the in suspect’s in volvement Accordingly, the crime. the admission of the error, if question was such properly was in presented the trial court.
Both on joint defendants represented by were counsel,
same and an objection by such counsel raising issue voluntariness the confession was sufficient as to State, both defendants. v. See Strickland (177 238). 750, 226 Ga. 751 SE2d the admis Accordingly, sion of such confession was error. question next decided be is whether it harmful
error. "Harm as well as error
shown
autho
rize a reversal
court. As was held in Brown v.
City Atlanta,
71,
66 Ga.
76:
When
er
plaintiff
ror
a case
brings
he must show error which has
hurt him. This court is not an expounder of theoretical
law,
law,
but
practical
administers
and corrects only
such errors as
wronged
practically
complaining
(152
also Dill v.
party.’
See
21
16 testified robbery in the armed of the other participants Two two testified participants the trial. Each of these on confession, were included the basic facts counsel. examined the defendant’s thoroughly cross circumstances, admission of the confes- Under such error evi- legally harmful since admissible sion Such is introduced. situation dence of the same (Ga. Act that referred to of 1971 not the same as 38-1713, deals enacting which L. Code p. objection and not waiver of evi- legally harmless which results from admissible harmless admission of rendering incompetent dence same fact. evidence of the or inadmissible any right was the denied confrontation Nor him denied in open defendant on trial with confession, as the facts contained in his purported court Evans, as its Dutton well voluntariness. v. Compare 213); O’Neil, Nelson U. S. SC v. 222); U. S. 622 29 LE2d v. Florida Schneble *3 second of error complains excerpt 2. The enumeration of from the with reasonable The ex- charge dealing doubt. is a of fragment charge, mere cerpt complained and when on such is consid- complete charge subject ered, no error appears. no made
3. Inasmuch as there was evidence of end, had come to an after was not conspiracy 38- for the court to fail to of Code charge provisions conviction, and judgment 4. The evidence authorized the overruling the motion for new trial was not appellant’s error for reason enumerated. any concur, Gunter, All the Justices Judgment except affirmed. J., who dissents. April
Argued 1972 Decided Wilson, Wilson, for appellant. Frank G. Carl Horkan, George Jr., Attorney, A. District Arthur K. Bol- Hill, Jr., ton, Attorney General; Harold N. Executive Assist- General, Stanton, ant Attorney Courtney Wilder Assistant General, Jr., Attorney Roger Moister, W. Assistant Deputy General, Attorney for appellee. Justice, dissenting. majority holds opinion
Gunter, co-defendant, that the written confession of one appellant’s was admitted in and that such admission into evidence erroneous the confession of Timms was induced "by slightest of benefit” 38-411. violation Code §
However, the majority’s goes decision on to hold that erroneous admission of harmful error re- evidence quiring a reversal of the trial court.
I agree that the admitted confession was inadmissible against the with the in hold- appellant. disagree majority ing that its admission was not harmful error.
The written confession of the co-defendant of the statute, obtained in a appellant, proscribed by manner our and admitted in evidence over his against objec- mind, And tion to him. this is true my prejudicial though even there was other evidence introduced the State from other witnesses to the same matter as pertaining subject The jury may may contained confession. not have believed the witnesses unless it had testimony of illegally been fortified admitted confession.
In the case of Green v. App. Mr. Justice Jordan then for the speaking Court said: Appeals beyond "Guilt reasonable doubt solely probative determined on admissible evidence of value. It was error to allow the to consider the prejudicial inadmissible evidence.” inadmissible,
If the and I co-defendant’s confession *4 its believe that then admission evidence for con- sideration was harmful to the extent of of a new trial. requiring granting
I reverse the judgment. would dissent. respectfully