Case ID: ga-app_23/html/0129-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Broyles, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

9920.
    Williams v. The State.
    Decided December 3, 1918.
    Indictment for murder; from Walton superior court—Judge Cobb. May 15, 1918.
    1. In the motion for a new trial the charge of the' court on the law of manslaughter was complained of on the ground that the evidence did not authorize instructions on that subject.
    3. The 5th ground of the motion was: “That the court erred in excluding from the jury the following evidence of J. L. Gibson, a witness for the defendant, to wit: Question: ‘Mr. Gibson, where did you first see Paul Williams [the defendant] after this crime was committed?’ ‘He came up here and gave himself up.’ This evidence was objected to by the solicitor-general and was ruled out by the court, as a self-serving declaration; which the movant contends was error and harmful to the defendant; defendant’s counsel stating that it was offered for the purpose of showing that the defendant surrendered^ himself to the deputy sheriff, Mr. Gibson, the witness, before a warrant was issued for him.”
    3. . On the subject of flight the court charged the jury as follows: “Plight of one accused of crime, if shown to the satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, may be considered by the jury, for the jury to determine whether, undfer all the circumstances, an inference of conscious guilt should be drawn from such flight, if proven. But flight is subject to explanation, .and the weight to be given it, and whether the jury will draw an inference of consciousness of guilt or not, is for the jury. It is for the jury to determine whether the flight of the defendant, if flight has been shown by the evidence, was due to a sense of guilt or to other reasons; and if the.jury are satisfied that-flight has been shown, but that it was due to other reasons than a consciousness of guilt, then no prejudicial inference should be drawn by the jury from such, flight.” In the motion for a new trial it is contended that “the evidence was not sufficient to justify this charge to the jury, and the same was harmful to the defendant.”
   Broyles, P. J.

1. The evidence submitted in behalf of the accused amply authorized the charge of the court upon voluntary manslaughter.

2. As presented by the 5th ground of the motion for a new trial, the ex elusion of the testimony set out therein -was not error.

3. Under the facts of the case the charge of the court upon the subject of flight was not error.

4. The verdict finding the accused gujlty of voluntary manslaughter was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in refusing to. grant a new tidal.

Judgment affirmed'.

Bloodworth, J., concurs. Stephens, J., not presiding.

Orrin Roberts, for plaintiff in error.

W. O. Dean, solicitor-general, contra.