*1 plaintiffs. Nix, Boling, Liles, W. L. Leon and A. G. for defend- for Fowler, Robinson & Thurmond and P. Wheeler, J. ants. THE STATE.
ROYALS v. Argued Decided May April No. 17439. plaintiff in error. Maddox, D. W. Stone and Gibson & Eugene Attorney-General, Parrish, Solicitor- Cook, Edward Attorneys- Addleton, Parham, R. L. and R. Assistant General, J. General, contra.
Head, Justice. The contention the defendant that request, principles trial court should have without charged, trial, ground law set forth in 3 of the amended motion for new from Code, 38-306, is without merit. The extract App. Grace v. (4) 49 could Ga. state have been beneficial time the to At the in ment Phillips evidence, was admitted trial court they structed the consider the statement that to Phillips only conspiracy found between that there was a the defendant and conceal a crime which had was conceal committed, conspiracy and that in further progress. still If the defendant had desired juiy under the conspiracy struction to the on No request charge. he timely should have made a written new ground of amended motion for error is shown in trial. rulings the court assign 1 and as error the
Grounds de have in the signed signed and the liberations statement of the defendant timely over alleged coconspirator, statement objections of the defendant. di- from the courts of Georgia
Counsel have not cited a case rectly and our search revealed question, on such a case. In Smithwick v. trial held that did not err 2d, 28), it was that
overruling complaining for new trial ground of motion the jury admissions or confessions taken to jury. in the Smithwick by considered docu- fact that of this was no objection, ments “were admitted in documents prohibiting subsequently motion made as to was deliberations.” being by considered and relies The defendant cites error reversible held to be 879), where it was
Ga. 452 by reduced to deceased, to further consideration sent out court for jury, objection pointed over the of the defendant. It was the Strickland interrogatories, though read evidence, deposi- should not jury, be delivered to the and that tions, read in held evidence, jury. should not It was that the written
deceased, deposition. effect a
The Strickland case cites Shedden read 719), in held interrogatories, though was in evidence, the jury, delivered over objection party against rendered, whom the verdict was and a new trial in that given case. The reason not allowing interrogatories delivered to testimony “the they contain, if read and reread jury, would have an oral testimony over the other side, more than once.” necessary It is to determine whether the Strick- *3 land case, supra, the where a new trial was because possession statement of the deceased was in the jury and available deliber- consideration present be re- ations, applicable would case. In some spects incriminatory a dying declaration or confession alleged coconspirator statements an are Both not dissimilar. exceptions rejects are ordinarily our rule which hearsay evi- requires dence. ad- necessity rule of mission evidence of a where the voice silenced, apply has been does deceased incriminatory of the coconspirator statements requires by interrogatories The law that witnesses testifying depositions be sworn. testi- Since §§ mony under an oath, the sanction or a equivalent deposition, has declared to be jury can not taken and there retained jury during deliberations, by analogy its it would seem exclude an the same unsworn alleged coconspirator. jurisdictions cited Counsel for State have cases from other support ruling of the trial court in ex this case. An amination of the cases cited shows point are not in present on their facts with appears case. There dis tinct line of jurisdictions contrary authorities from other holding line authorities cited counsel for the State. writer any able find directly present its with case, facts analysis of various rulings from here, other purpose could serve no States useful and would unnecessarily extend present our consideration of the case. It is that, sufficient to note all cases examined other Ill. jurisdictions, People Spranger, N. E. with nearly seems to accord most previous Spranger decisions this court. In the case it permitted ruled: “The them should not be to take for consideration in jury room, depositions, dying declara tions, confessions or written defendant, statements other depending instruments for their value on credibility of the maker.” court, previously
This as noted, it specifically has ruled that requiring grant is error aof new trial to testimony. take to Shedden v. su- pra; may State, supra. Such written testimony have an advantage over oral testimony by speaking more In once. addition to the unfair had, once, might more than explanation appears be observed that no why record in the as to the State did not offer subject witness defendant and him to cross-exámi- nation counsel for the accused. Confrontation witnesses testifying against an accused a substantial right. constitutional *4 Constitution, par. Ann., 2-105). sec. 1, (Code, art. statement, instrument and confession, by Phillips, sent depends upon of room, credibility for its value sub- sworn, testify, who did not not jected is, effect, to cross-examination. Yet it insisted it was not erroneous to allow unverified state- State that many speak ment to deliberations as is it. contention see fit to refer to Such times as the supported by any State, rule of evidence decision of this court.
Even
conceded
the evidence
should be
was-
overwhelmingly demanded
that the defendant
a conclusion
general
with-
guilty,
of
guilty
murder,
a
verdict
as matter
mercy,
never demanded
a
a
out
recommendation
(57
v.
101);
Glover v.
S. E.
law.
Barfield
(175
582);
Jones v.
Hawkins,
opinion,
division of
corresponding
2nd headnote and
evi-
for the reason that
judgment
reversal,
from the
testimony,
oral
higher proof
considered of
dence is
de-
coconspirator and
where,
here, the statements of
highest
written statements
writing,
fendant
permitted to
evidence, and were
and best
jury. Code,
38-205.
Duckworth,
Justice,
Chief
state that
I
authorized to
am
in this dissent.
Justice, concur
Candler,
Corp.
Peavy
et al.
v. General
Securities
enjoin proceedings in
Equity
will not
Duckworth,
Chief Justice.
1.
equity
defense
intervening
or other
some
law unless there is
at
party
himself
the suit
can not avail
fault
Code, §
law.
equitable
jurisdiction
where
entertain
defenses
2.
Courts
law have
sought.
Oliver,
equitable
v.
123 Ga.
no affirmative
relief is
House
(60
(51
1049);
Graham,
722);
S. E.