Williams v. State (1966)

OCGA § 24-4-8; Williams v. State, 222 Ga. 208, 217 (14), 149 S.E.2d 449 (1966).

Buchanan v. State, 215 Ga. 791 (2) ( 113 SE2d 609 ); Williams v. State, 222 Ga. 208, 212 ( 149 SE2d 449 ).

Williams v. State, 222 Ga. 208, 220 ( 149 SE2d 449 ) (one Justice dissenting).

As was held in Blevins v. State, 220 Ga. 720 (2) ( 141 SE2d 426 ), and quoted with approval in Williams v. State, 222 Ga. 208, 212 ( 149 SE2d 449 ): “There is no statute or rule of procedure of force in this State which requires a solicitor-general or other prosecuting officer to make his evidence, documentary or otherwise, available to the accused or his counsel before trial.” This case, unlike Giles v. Maryland, 386 U. S. 66 (87 SC 793, 17 LE2d 737), shows no attempt by th…

Clay contends that the trial court erroneously denied his second motion for a mistrial, made after a law enforcement officer testified as to evidence of an unrelated homicide. 10 Cromartie v. State, 270 Ga. 780, 784 (9) (a) ( 514 SE2d 205 ) (1999) (citations omitted) (trial court did not err by failing to excuse for cause prospective jurors who had been exposed to pretrial publicity but were qualified to serve; jurors either had no opinion about the case or could lay aside t…

Cromartie v. State, 270 Ga. 780, 784 (9) (a) ( 514 SE2d 205 ) (1999) (citations omitted) (trial court did not err by failing to excuse for cause prospective jurors who had been exposed to pretrial publicity but were qualified to serve; jurors either had no opinion about the case or could lay aside their opinion and render a verdict based solely on the evidence and the trial court’s instructions); Lawler v. State, 276 Ga. 229, 235 (5) ( 576 SE2d 841 ) (2003) (trial court did …

“The conduct of a defendant before, during the time of, and after the commission of a crime, may be considered by the jury in establishing his intention and his participation, to determine whether or not such intention and conduct were sufficient corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice to sustain a conviction.” (Punctuation omitted.) Williams v. State, 222 Ga. 208, 220 (14) ( 149 SE2d 449 ) (1966). “ ‘It is not required that the corroboration of the testimony given b…

Williams v. State, 222 Ga. 208, 220 ( 149 SE2d 449 ) (1966).” Drake v. State, 241 Ga. 583, 586 ( 247 SE2d 57 ) (1978), Berry v. State, 248 Ga. 430, 432 (1) ( 283 SE2d 607 ) (1981).

Williams v. State, 222 Ga. 208, 220 ( 149 SE2d 449 ).

This may be done by circumstantial as well as by direct evidence.’ Williams v. State, 222 Ga. 208, 220 ( 149 SE2d 449 ) (1966).” Smith v. State, 238 Ga. 640, 642 ( 235 SE2d 17 ) (1977).

Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794 , 95 S.Ct. 2031 , 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975) (no denial of constitutional right to fair trial where pretrial publicity detailed defendant’s criminal record including convictions for murder and transportation of stolen securities in interstate commerce); Mayola v. State of Alabama, 623 F.2d 992, 996-99 (5th Cir.1980), ce rt. denied, 451 U.S. 913 , 101 S.Ct. 1986 , 68 L.Ed.2d 303 (1981) (although dispute as to whether change of venue formally request…

Williams v. State, 222 Ga. 208, 220 ( 149 SE2d 449 ) (1966).” Drake v. State, 241 Ga. 583, 586 ( 247 SE2d 57 ) (1978).

This may be done by circumstantial as well as by direct evidence.’ Williams v. State, 222 Ga. 208, 220 ( 149 SE2d 449 ) (1966).” Smith v. State, 238 Ga. 640, 642 ( 235 SE2d 17 ) (1977).“[T]he evidence corroborating the accomplice’s testimony does not have to be sufficient in and of itself to support a verdict of guilty; circumstantial evidence tying the defendant to the. crime and justifying an inference of guilt is satisfactory.” Gunter v. State, 243 Ga. 651, 655 ( 256 SE2d…

Williams v. State, 222 Ga. 208, 220 ( 149 SE2d 449 ).

Williams v. State, 222 Ga. 208, 220 ( 149 SE2d 449 ).

Williams v. State, 222 Ga. 208, 220 ( 149 SE2d 449 ) (1966).

In Jordon v. State, 232 Ga. 749 (9) ( 208 SE2d 840 ) (1974),this court held(at p. 756):" 'The evidence which the grand jury receives in finding a true bill is not subject to inquiry.’ Farmer v. State, 228 Ga. 225 (3) ( 184 SE2d 647 ); Powers v. State, 172 Ga. 1 (3) ( 157 SE 195 ); Buchanan v. State, 215 Ga. 791 (2) ( 113 SE2d 609 ); Williams v. State, 222 Ga. 208, 212 ( 149 SE2d 449 ).” The accused has ample opportunity at trial to defend himself in the presence of the court…

This may be done by circumstantial as well as by direct evidence.” Williams v. State, 222 Ga. 208, 220 ( 149 SE2d 449 ) (1966).

Such discretion will not be controlled by the appellate courts unless abused.” McCrary v. State, 229 Ga. 733, 734 ( 194 SE2d 480 ); Thacker v. State, 226 Ga. 170 (2) ( 173 SE2d 186 ); Park v. State, 225 Ga. 618 (1) ( 170 SE2d 687 ); Williams v. State, *133 222 Ga. 208, 209 ( 149 SE2d 449 ); Chatterton v. State, 221 Ga. 424 (2) ( 144 SE2d 726 ).

There was no request for such a charge as is required by Williams v. State, 222 Ga. 208, 217 ( 149 SE2d 449 ).

"The evidence which the grand jury receives in finding a true bill is not subject to inquiry.” Farmer v. State, 228 Ga. 225 (3) ( 184 SE2d 647 ); Powers v. State, 172 Ga. 1 (3) ( 157 SE 195 ); Buchanan v. State, 215 Ga. 791 (2) ( 113 SE2d 609 ); Williams v. State, 222 Ga. 208, 212 ( 149 SE2d 449 ).

Morgan v. State, 211 Ga. 172, 175 ( 84 SE2d 365 ); Williams v. State, 222 Ga. 208, 210 ( 149 SE2d 449 ).

Williams v. State, 222 Ga. 208, 212 ( 149 SE2d 449 ).

Walker v. State, 215 Ga. 128, 130 ( 109 SE2d 748 ); Blevins v. State, 220 Ga. 720 (2) ( 141 SE2d 426 ); Williams v. State, 222 Ga. 208, 211 ( 149 SE2d 449 ); Jones v. State, 224 Ga 283, 284 ( 161 SE2d 302 ); Brown v. State, [ 224 Ga. 389, 390 ( 162 SE2d 349 )]; Holmes v. State, 224 Ga. 553, 562 ( 163 SE2d 803 ).” Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 77 , supra. There is no merit in these enumerations of error. 13.

Buchanan v. State, supra; Williams v. State, 222 Ga. 208, 212 ( 149 SE2d 449 ).

Williams v. State, 222 Ga. 208, 212 ( 149 SE2d 449 ).

See Williams v. State, 222 Ga. 208, 217 (14) ( 149 SE2d 449 ) (1966).

Accord, Williams v. State, 222 Ga. 208, 212 ( 149 SE2d 449 ) (1966).