Case Name: McDonald vs. The State of Georgia
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1884-02-09
Citations: 72 Ga. 55
Docket Number: 
Parties: McDonald vs. The State of Georgia.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 72
Pages: 55–63

Head Matter:
McDonald vs. The State of Georgia.
1. As a general rule, when the court has admitted .illegal evidence which is subsequently ruled out, this subsequent action of the court will cure the error; but this rule is subject to the exception that, where the illegal evidence, wrongfully admitted, upon the facts of the given case, may have worked such harm or injury to the accused as to render it probable that its subsequent withdrawal did not heal the wounds so inflicted, a new trial will be granted. The facts of this case are such as to render it probable that the error of the court in admitting the illegal testimony was not cured by the subsequent withdrawal thereof,
Hill, J., concurring. Jackson, C. J., dissenting.
2. Affidavits used on the hearing of a motion for new trial must be properly authenticated and brought to this court. A mere order that all affidavits so used be filed in the clerk’s office, and the appearance in the record of what purport to be copies of the affidavits, with the entries of filing thereon, is not sufficient; and a ground of the motion dependent on them will not be considered.
February 9, 1884.
Criminal Law. Confessions. Evidence. Practice in Superior Court. Practice in Supreme Court. Before Judge Pair. Dooly Superior Court. March Term, 1883.
Perry G. McDonald was indicted for assault and battery, alleged to have been committed on Stephen Woodward. The fact that he caught Woodward by the beard, pulled him out of a buggy, and committed a battery upon him, was scarcely contested, but it was insisted by the defendant that Woodward grossly and repeatedly insulted him, and gave him such provocation as to justify the battery. The defendant was about twenty-five years of age, while Woodward was about seventy-six. The jury found the defendant guilty. He moved for a new trial on various grounds, the only material one of which is stated in the opinions of the justices. The motion was overruled, and defendant excepted.
One ground of the motion for new trial was newly discovered evidence. In support of this ground, several affidavits appear in the record marked filed in office. There also appears in the record an order that the affidavits, to be used on the motion for new trial, should be submitted to counsel for the other side at least ten days before the hearing, and should be filed in the clerk’s office before the hearing. When the case was called in the Supreme Court, a motion was made to dismiss the writ of error, under the ruling in Warnock vs. Kilpatrick, administrator, 70 Ga., 730. The court refused to dismiss the case, but declined to consider the ground to which these affidavits applied.
G. W. Busbee ; Gustin & Hall, for plaintiff in error.
0. C. SMiTHj solicitor general; Harrison & Peeples, for the state.

Opinion:
Blandford, Justice.
The plaintiff in error was indicted for an assault and battery. The state, on the trial, offered to prove that a few days after the battery, accused said he wished he had broken every bone in prosecutor, on account of the manner in which he had been treated afterwards by prosecutor. This testimony was objected to by the accused as illegal. The objection- was overruled, by the court, and the evidence was allowed to go to the jury. Subsequently the court withdrew the evidence from the jury, upon motion of defendant's counsel. The general rule is that, when the court has admitted illegal evidence to the jury, which is subsequently ruled out, this subsequent action of the court will cure the error in the admission of the illegal evidence ; but this rule is subject to this exception: where the illegal evidence, wrongfully admitted, upon the facts of tho given case, may have worked such harm or injury to the accused as to render it probable that the subsequent withdrawal of such evidence from the jury did not heal the wounds so inflicted, then a new trial will be granted. This court, in Hall vs. State, 65 Ga., 36, intended to go to this extent only, although the language employed by the lamented judge in that case is susceptible of a construction that would carry that case much further.
By applying the minor rule thus laid down to the case now before us, we think it is probable that the error of the court, in admitting the illegal testimony complained of, caused such injury to plaintiff in error as the subsequent withdrawal of the same did not cure, and for this we reverse the judgment, and grant a new trial.
Judgment reversed.