Warren v. State

1 Citing case

  1. Cullens v. State

    96 S.E.2d 540 (Ga. Ct. App. 1957)   Cited 2 times

    Staten v. State, 140 Ga. 110 (2) ( 78 S.E. 766), and Roberson v. State, 14 Ga. App. 557 ( 81 S.E. 798), cited by counsel for the plaintiff in error, hold that the trial court must not, when instructing the jury on the effect of the sworn testimony of one defendant in a criminal case given on behalf of a codefendant jointly on trial, instruct that this sworn testimony, as to the defendant giving it, has the same effect as an unsworn statement, as this tends to minimize the effect of the testimony. Those cases do not apply here for the reasons that (1) in those cases the defendants made no unsworn statement, while here each defendant, in addition to testifying for his codefendant, made an unsworn statement in his own behalf (this distinction is fully developed in Warren v. State, 74 Ga. App. 285, 39 S.E.2d 704), and (2) in the present case both the defendants, their counsel, and the solicitor stipulated with the court "to a joint trial with the reservation by each of the defendants to give sworn testimony on behalf of the other defendant but not on his own behalf; each of the defendants further reserving the right to make an unsworn statement solely on his own behalf, and that such sworn testimony and unsworn statements should be so considered for all purposes in the joint trial of the cases." In Burnsed v. State, 14 Ga. App. 832, 835 ( 82 S.E. 595), and Burgan v. State, 59 Ga. App. 524, 527 ( 1 S.E.2d 603), it is held that where a defendant testifies on behalf of a codefendant jointly on trial with him the circumstances "are so exceptional that we deem it to be better practice that the attention of the jury be directed to the exercise of this right upon the part of the accused, and that they be instructed that this testimony is to be given the same consideration as that of other witnesses.