Case ID: ga_95/html/0499-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Johnson v. The State.
    Simmons, C. J. — 1. The grounds of the motion for a new trial, so far as they relate to the overruling of the motion for a continuance, not being approved by the judge otherwise than by reference to a stenographic report of the evidence introduced in support of the motion to continue, are not verified in such manner as to require consideration by this court. Even if they had been properly verified, it would not appear that the court erred in refusing a continuance; the absence of the alleged leading counsel of the accused not being sufficiently accounted for; and it not being in the least probable that he would ever be able to procure the attendance of the absent witness, who resided in Rhode Island, and on account of whose absence the case had been continued at the preceding term. •
    2. The ground of the motion assigning error upon the charge of the court upon the subject of the character of the accused for peaceableness was not approved at all, and therefore cannot be considered. The request to charge upon this subject was argumentative, and stated the law too favorably for the accused. The other requests to charge, including one with reference to the law of reasonable doubt, were, so far as legal and pertinent, covered by the general charge of the court.
    3. Where during the progress of a trial the court refused to allow the introduction of certain evidence on the ground that the same was irrelevant, and afterwards this evidence in the opinion of the judge becoming relevant on account of the introduction of other testimony and being then admitted, the refusal to admit it when first offered is not cause for a new trial, even if it was really relevant when so offered.
    4. The evidence being such that the jury might have found the accused guilty of the crime of murder, and the verdict being for voluntary manslaughter, the accused has in this respect no cause of complaint. There was no error in refusing a new trial.
    February 5, 1895.
    By two Justices.
    Indictment for murder. Before Judge Hunt. Dodge superior court. September term, 1894.
    J. W. Preston and E. T. Davis, for plaintiff’ in error.
    J. M. Terrell, attorney-general, and Tom Eason, solicitor-general, contra.
    
   Judgment affirmed.