Summary
Judgment reversed. Carlisle, Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.
Summary
Judgment reversed. Carlisle, Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.
Text
E. B. Gostin, Frank G. Wilson, for plaintiff in error.
1. "An incriminating statement, to be the equivalent of a confession of guilt, must be so comprehensive as to include every act necessary to be proved by the prosecution in order to establish the defendant's guilt, and where the statement amounts only to an incriminatory admission, it is error for the trial judge to give in charge the law as it relates to confessions of guilt. Owens v. State,
2. On a charge of aiding, abetting and procuring one Lurenda Brown to administer to Sarah Lee, a pregnant woman, certain drugs and use certain instruments, which were in fact used and administered by Lurenda Brown upon her person, with the intent to produce a miscarriage and abortion, a police officer testified: "Mr. Scoggins told us in October--about a month before then Josephine Clingerman had come by his place several times and talked to him, and once or twice on one or two of the occasions said that pregnancy was brought up, and he stated that she told him that if she was pregnant she would go to see a doctor down in Vidalia, and he said, 'Well, no need of doing that,' says, 'I know a negro that will perform an abortion by the name of Bay'; so he said that one time after then that Josephine Clingerman and Sarah Lee met him at the Big Apple parking lot out on Houston Avenue one night and that Sarah got out of the car with Josephine and got in the car with him, and talked to him about it, and also told him that--said Josephine had given him a check to give to this negro; . . . and that he went and picked up this Bay, who is Lurenda Brown, at her home on Dent Street, and drove as far as Anthony Road when he gave her a hundred dollars; made him think that both of them were pregnant--her and Sarah both--and he carried Lurenda over to the home on Houston Avenue, Bowden Homes [where Josephine Clingerman lived] where he let Bay out."
Statements from which an inference of guilt is authorized, but which require an inference to reach this conclusion, are not confessions, which must be plenary statements of guilt. Johnson v. State,
The trial court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial on special grounds 1, 4, 10 and 11.
Clarence H. Clay, Jr., Solicitor, Harry F. Thompson, Assistant Solicitor, contra.
Sponsored links