169 Ga. 182 | Ga. | 1929
Willie Thomas was convicted of the murder of Willis H. Howell, and was sentenced to be executed. His motion for a new trial was overruled, and he excepted. There were no witnesses to the homicide. Howell was last seen alive on Saturday morning, October 1, 1937, about nine o’clock, standing in front of his residence in Dodge County. He was missed about ten o’clock of that morning, and a search was instituted. About two o’clock in the afternoon of the following Monday Ms body, on which was a wound inflicted with a gun, was found in a corn-field about 150 or 300 yards behind the dwelling. The body had been buried, and a fire burned over the shallow grave. The defendant was arrested during the morning of that day, and was carried to the jail in Mc-Bae, Telfair County. Late in the afternoon he was moved to the jail in Dodge County. On the following morning (Tuesday) he made a confession to the sheriff. On the trial, which occurred on October 13, 1937, the sheriff testified, in connection with his testimony as to a confession, as follows: “He made this statement to me down here at the jail on Tuesday after the body was found on Monday. Nobody induced this defendant to make this statement in my presence, and I did not induce him to malee it. . . TMs defendant Willie Thomas has made that confession to me several times and in the presence of others. I have been to see him with you [Mr. Boyer] and Mr. Mann, and he would make the same statement and the same confession in your presence; no hope of benefit held out to him nor fear of punishment by any of you, and he made the statement freely and voluntarily; he was assured that he had a right to talk if he wanted to, or that he did not have
1. It has been held by this court: “Before a confession can be considered as evidence, it must appear to have been made voluntarily, without being induced by another by the slightest hope of benefit or remotest fear of injury. Penal Code, § 1006. . . If induced by another by hope of benefit or fear of injury, it is involuntary, although such inducement be held out by one person and the confession be subsequently made to another, who has no knowledge of such inducement and who offers none himself. Where there is evidence of a confession before the jury, it is for them to determine, from all the evidence; whether the confession was voluntary.” Griner v. State, 121 Ga. 614 (6) (49 S. E. 700). It was error for the judge to admit in evidence and refuse to overrule the motion to exclude the testimony of the sheriff as to a con
2. Other grounds of the motion for new trial do not require reversal, nor are they of such character as to require elaboration.
Judgment reversed.