Court Opinion

ID: 9582808
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:31:35.502596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:33.708520
License: Public Domain

Banke, Judge.
Hubert and Montez Smith, husband and wife, were jointly indicted for murder. The jury found Hubert Smith guilty of voluntary manslaughter and Montez Smith guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Defendants appeal. Held:
1. The evidence shows that defendants were at a dance when they received information that Charles Hyde, the brother of Hubert Smith’s former wife, had gone to their home in an intoxicated condition and picked up the two minor children of Montez Smith by a previous marriage and the adult married daughter of Hubert Smith (the neice of Charles Hyde), who was baby-sitting for them. The defendants drove to Hyde’s mobile home where they saw his wife and infant son waiting outside in a car. She was asked of Hyde’s whereabouts and responded that he was in the trailer. Montez Smith then told her, "Well, your son is going to be an orphan because we’re going to kill that son of a bitch.” The defendants *811stood outside for a short time, cursing, beating on the mobile home and shouting threats to Hyde who made no response. Montez Smith then broke a window, reached in and opened the door, and entered the mobile home followed by Hubert Smith. There were sounds of a beating or fight taking place followed by a gunshot. Hubert Smith came to the door of the mobile home and stated that he had shot Hyde in a struggle over Hyde’s rifle. In addition to the gunshot wound, which was the primary cause of death, Hyde suffered bruises and lacerations.
2. As to Hubert Smith, the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. There was no error in denying defendant Hubert Smith’s motion for new trial. See Cohran v. State, 141 Ga. App. 4 (1) (232 SE2d 355) (1977).
3. The evidence is uncontradicted that Hubert Smith fired the fatal shot. Since Montez Smith did not commit the homicide, her culpability would arise only as a party or co-conspirator to the crime. "Every person concerned in the commission of a crime is a party thereto and may be charged with and convicted of commission of the crime.” Code § 26-801 (a). (Emphasis supplied.) The jury found the crime committed was that of voluntary manslaughter. Was she a co-conspirator? When individuals associate themselves together to do an unlawful act, any act done in pursuance of that association, by any one of those individuals to the conspiracy, would, in legal contemplation, be the act of each of them. Where a conspiracy is shown, as it may well have been in this case, the act of one becomes the act of all and each is as fully responsible for the act of the other in carrying out the common purpose, as if she, herself, had committed the act. The jury found the act committed was that of voluntary manslaughter, whereas she was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Thus, it necessarily follows that the jury found Montez Smith guilty of a crime that it also determined was not committed.
Not only is the verdict as to Montez Smith inconsistent with the verdict pertaining to Hubert, it is also repugnant to the evidence. Montez made a very clear announcement immediately prior to entering the trailer *812that she and her husband intended to kill Hyde. There is absolutely no indication that she was engaged in any conduct through which she could have unintentionally caused Hyde’s death. See Code Ann. § 26-1103 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249, 1276). Accordingly, the verdict as to Montez Smith is reversed.
Submitted March 1, 1977
Decided July 13, 1977.
Richard S. Gault, for appellants.
C. B. Holcomb, District Attorney, Frank C. Mills, III, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
In a case where there is more than one party and the jury could properly find various degrees of homicide, the better procedure would be for the trial judge to carefully instruct the jury as to which homicide the principles of conspiracy and parties to crime would and would not apply.
4. "Where an objection is sustained to testimony sought to be elicited from a party’s witness on direct examination, and the trial court is not informed as to the testimony expected, the ruling of the trial court will not be reversed.” Anderson v. Jarriel, 224 Ga. 495 (3) (162 SE2d 322); Lee v. State, 237 Ga. 179, 180 (3) (227 SE2d 62).

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Bell, C. J., Quillian, P. J., Webb, Marshall and Shulman, JJ., concur. Been, P. J., concurs in the judgment only. Smith and McMurray, JJ., concur in Divisions 2 and 4 and dissent in Division 3.