Hammond v. State

<p>1. In charging a jury the rule contained in section 1029 of the Penal Code, relating to acquiescence or silence as an admission, the court should not fail to instruct the jury, in connection with that rule, that the jury are to determine whether or- not, under all the circumstances, an answer or denial was required.</p> <p>2. While expert witnesses may give their opinions as to facts, principles, and rules involved in the science in which they are learned, they are not, as to questions lying out of the domain of the science, art, or trade in which they are experts, exempt from the restriction of the rule which requires witnesses to state facts and not opinions.</p> <p>3. In view of the statement of the defendant, the court did not err in instructing the jury, in substance, that the defendant “ denies that he killed his wife, and says that she committed suicide.” Eor the defend-in his statement said: “ Gentlemen of the jury, I want to state to you that I am not guilty of killing my wife. . . On Saturday before my wife killed herself on the following Monday night, I left Columbus and went to Juniper, Ga. . . That was on Saturday before my wife committed suicide on Monday night.”</p> <p>4. In the course of his argument to the jury the solicitor-general said: “ During my six years of experience as a prosecuting attorney, this evidence is as strong as any ease of circumstantial evidence I have ever had.” Thereupon counsel for the defendant made a motion for a mistrial, which the.court overruled. Held that this was not error. The remarks were not of such a character as to require the grant of a new trial because of the use of the language by the prosecuting attorney. Nix v. State, 149 Ga. 304, 311 (100 S. E. 197), and cit.</p> <p>5. Other language used by counsel for the State in the argument to the jury is disapproved.</p>