Opinion
37400.
DECIDED OCTOBER 15, 1958.
Involuntary manslaughter. Muscogee Superior Court. Before Judge Thompson. July 24, 1958.
Nilan Rosenstrauch, Lawrence S. Rosenstrauch, for plaintiff in error.
John H. Land, Solicitor-General, contra.
Under the record of this case the general grounds show sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict. The court did not err in the rulings as to the special grounds.
DECIDED OCTOBER 15, 1958.
James A. Crittenden was indicted for murder with an automobile and convicted by a jury of involuntary manslaughter in the commission of an unlawful act. He was sentenced to a period of not less than three and not more than five years. Counsel for the defendant filed a motion for new trial on the statutory grounds and thereafter added two special grounds. The court denied the motion for new trial and it is on this judgment that the case is here for review.
The evidence shows substantially that several police officers testified that the defendant was drunk. Witnesses who testified to this fact were Police Officer E. D. Ellis of the Muscogee County Police Department, Charles D. Gooch, 1st Lt. Military Police Corps, United States Army, and M/Sgt. Joseph W. Burrus attached to the Military Police at Ft. Benning. Also J. B. Jackson testified that he was driving a truck along the road where the homicide occurred and that the defendant was driving 40 or 50 miles per hour in a school zone, weaving his car from one side of the road to the other and the witness, in fear of his own life, stopped his truck and got out of it. This witness also testified that in his estimation the defendant was drunk.
There was evidence that the defendant was skidding as shown by photographs of skid marks made at the scene of the crime.
1. The evidence is entirely sufficient to sustain the verdict.
2. Special ground 1 assigns error because it is alleged that a certain photograph put in exhibit by the State did not properly show the relation of skid marks to the collision. We have examined this photograph and the other photographs, as well as the testimony of various witnesses in relation to the skid marks and the collision in general and find that it was not erroneous to admit the photograph into evidence, along with the testimony of Capt. F. B. Faison, a police officer. Capt. Faison was sufficiently clear in his testimony so as to leave no doubt as to the skid marks in relation to the homicide car. Also other witnesses were definitely clear regarding the position of the car, the bicycle and the skid marks. In view of all the evidence both oral and documentary it was not error to admit the photograph in relation to Capt. Faison's testimony. This assignment of error is not meritorious.
3. Special ground 2 assigns error because it is alleged that evidence offered by the defendant was illegally withheld from the jury against the demand of counsel for the defendant. This evidence consisted of a map drawn by the defendant showing roughly the relative positions of all vehicles in relation to the curve in the road. While it would not have been erroneous to admit this diagram, under the record of this case, at the same time it does not materially differ from the testimony submitted by witnesses and we cannot see that it would have aided the defendant in any way to have had this admitted into evidence. The whole terrain in relation to the car and the bicycle was thoroughly covered by other testimony, and the refusal of the court to admit this into evidence, under the record of this case, was not reversible error.
The court did not err in denying the motion for new trial for any of the reasons assigned.
Judgment affirmed. Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.