Atlanta Georgian. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1912-1939, 1914-02-17

l.
b August 25-Frank found guilty.
August 26-Frank sentenced TO 5
die.
October 22-Arsunnert for new ;
trial.
b October 31-Roan refuses new s
trial.
December 15-Hearins before
Supreme Court.
February 17-supreme Court de.
eision.
,~-~->~~~-~~~-----o>~-~-~
the offense for which the defendant
was being tried; or where the testi-
mony in reference to such prior con-
duct of the declarant did not come
within any Of the exceptions to the
general rule which we have stated?
As Applied to CenIey.
To us II clearly appears that such
evidence would be incompetent on the
grounds of irrelevancy. Yet 1t is
urged that the testimony of the wit
ness Conley as to lascivious conduct
of the defendant with other women
prior to the homicide of Mary Pha-
gan was admissible to explain what
the witness understood to be the
meaning of the alleged declaration to
him by the defendant that you know
amt built like other men," even
though IL does not appear that the
defendant ever knew that Conley had
any knowledge of the defendants
conduct with the woman on the table.
in holding that the facts of the
witness Conley having testified that
the accused said to him, You know
amt built like other men," would not
render admissible the evidence which
he was permitted. over objection, to
give of other and different acts. we
have adduced reasons, which seem to
us sound. which strengthen us in that
conviction.
For substantially the same reasons
and in the light of the evidence of diff
ferent authorities we are of the
opinion that such evidence of differ
ent acts and offenses committed
against or with other parties than the
deceased was not admissible for the
purpose of allowing the witness to
explain TO the jury what the accused
meant in saying, Il want you to
watch for me like you have been
doing the rest OF the Saturdays"
Molineux Case Cited.
Before noting and discussing the
exceptions to the general rule above
referred to, we will quote some per-
tinent remarks in reference TO the
rule made by Judge O'Brien in the
case of tho People VS.. MonineuX, 1853
n. Y, 264: 81 l.. r. A., 1873: 81 n. f.
la naf n ire
ing the Identity of the author of
great crime, where the evidence is
purely circunstantial, the human
mind instinctivelY adopts processes in
arriving at results that are not sane
toned by the rules of evidence. The
hardened and habitual criminal is
more likely to be suspected than one
who had never committed crime
before. If the party suspected COM
mitted "a similar crime before by the
same or similar means or a series of
such crimes. proof of these facts goes
far TO establish his guilt In the pop
ular mind of the offene charged and
for which he is on trial. and vet
nothing Is better established than the
rule that the vicious character Of a
person on trial for specific offense
can not be shown unless he himself
makes his character or the events of
a.
coming a witness in the case.
mo matter how notorious a Grim
inal the party on trial may be. neither
his general reputation or other spe.
cific offenses can legally be proved
against him as evidence of his guilt
of the offense.
Law Does Not Permit Such Proof.
THAT such proof is persuasive and
has great influence when introduced
upon courts and jurles can not be
doubted: but the law does not permit
it to be given upon the trial of an is
sue concerning the guilt or innocence
OF the party on trial for specific Of
Tense
The reason Ia that such proof does
not bear upon the issue In the case,
and hence 1t is misleading since It
does not follow that party who has
committed one crime, or many, Is
guilty of some other crime for which
he is on trial. II is said that the evil
dence eliminating in Barnetts death
tends TO identify the defendant as the
author of the death of Mrs. Adams:
but that is only another way of as
sorting the general proposition that
the commission by the defendant Of
one crime tends TO prove that he
committed another crime, and, no
matter in what form nor how often
persuasive or plausible IL NAV appear,
it is erroneous and misleading since
1t violates salutarv principle of the
la wof evidence which should be APP
piled in all cases without regard to
the question of actual guilt or inno-
cence.
II the guilty can not he convicted
without breaking down the barriers
which the law has erected for the
protection Of every person accused of
crime, IT IL better that they should
escape rather than that the life or
liberty Of an innocent person should
be imperilled
1t is so difficult for the human mind
to descry false theories that assume
the disguise OF truth and so easv to
substitute suspicious and speculations
for evidence of facts that proof of
the general bad character OF the ac-
cused or Of PARTICIPATION in other
crimes, which is practically the same