Gillum v. State
Gillum v. State
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The court properly overruled the motion to quash the return to the writ of venire facias, and properly refused the motion for an alias writ for those of the jurors who had not been summoned. It is not necessary that the persons named in a special venire facias shall be summoned by an officer holding the writ in his hands, nor that the deputies shall be formally appointed in writing by the sheriff. It is sufficient to show that the jurors have been notified to appear by some person professing to act for the sheriff. And if it appears that the persons so acting have made diligent efforts to summon
The threats and declarations of Thomas and Harry Gillum not made in the presence of the defendant should not have been admitted against him. After a conspiracy has been established by evidence aliunde, the declarations and acts of each conspirator in the furtherance of the common design are admissible against all, but it is necessary that such acts and declarations be shown to have been made or done in the prosecution of the common purpose. They are admissible as parts of the res gestae, and declarations or admissions which are not themselves acts and do not illustrate or interpret contemporaneous acts do not partake of the nature of res gestae, and are inadmissible against any others save those by whom they are made. 1 Phillips on Ev. 205; Wharton on Criminal Evidence, § 698. ^ The threats and declarations of Thomas and Harry Gillum which were proved against the defendant were none of them made while the parties were engaged in any attempt to kill or injure the deceased.
Judgment reversed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Frederick Gillum v. State
- Cited By
- 6 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Criminal Law. Venire facias. Irregularities in service. Motion to quash return. The fact that a special venire facias in a capital case was served by a person not having the writ in his possession and having no written appointment as a deputy sheriff, is not a good ground for a motion to quash the return on the writ, if it appears that the writ was executed by a person professing to act for the sheriff. 2. Same. Failure to summon all of venire. Alias writ. And the defendant, in such case, is not entitled to an alias venire facias because some of those named in the original writ for jurors were not found, where it appears that diligent efforts were made to summon all of them. 3. Murder. Circumstantial evidence. Motive. In the trial of a charge of murder, depending upon circumstantial evidence; am indictment against the defendant for another offense, found previously to, the killing, is not: admissible to show a motive in the accused, when it is not proven that the deceased had any connection with that indictment or that the accused knew of its existence. 4. Murder. Proof of motive. Indictment procured by deceased. Where, however, it is shown that, prior to the killing, the defendant in such case knew'of an indictment against himself for a misdemeanor, which he believed to have been procured by the deceased, and had threatened to kill him for it, the indictment is competent as a part of the evidence to establish a motiye for the crime charged. 6. Conspiracy. Evidence. Admissibility of declarations. The declarations of a conspirator are not admissible against a co-conspirator, if not uttered in the presence of the latter, unless made while doing some act in furtherance of the common purpose.