Jones v. State
Jones v. State
Opinion of the Court
I. It was not error to reject the declarations of the defendant as to why he did the killing. They did not come within the rule of res gestee. They were not sponta
II. There is no error in the charge of the court. It presented to the jury fully, clearly and correctly all the law applicable to the facts of the case. It was more liberal to the defendant than the evidence demanded. It might very well have omitted any instructions as to self defense, that issue not having been fairly raised by the proof. The issue of manslaughter was not presented by the evidence, and hence it was not error to fail to charge the law of that offense.
III. The conviction is amply sustained by the evidence. There is no room to doubt that defendant committed the murder, and that he was actuated by express malice. It was a deliberate homicide, unprovoked and without mitigation. It is but justice that he should suffer the extreme penalty of the law, and the judgment is affirmed, there being no reason appearing to us why it should be set aside.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- James Jones v. State
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Murder—Evidence—Declarations of a defendant subsequent to the commission of the offense, if wanting in spontaneity and instinctiveness, and are but the party talking about the facts, and not the facts speaking through the party, form no part of the res gestee, but are self-serving declarations, and as such are properly rejected as evidence. 3. Same—Charge oe the Court in a murder trial properly omits the law of manslaughter in the absence of evidence mooting that degree of homicide. Note the statement of the case for evidence which fails to present the issue of self defense, and therefore the defendant can not be heard to complain of the charge upon that issue, in as much as it enured to his benefit. 3. Same—Pact Case.—See the statement of the case for evidence held sufficient to support a capital conviction for murder.