Lovel v. State

<p>1. Homicide <&wkey;250 — Circumstantial evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction for murder.</p> <p>In a prosecution for murder, circumstantial evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction.</p> <p>2. Criminal law <&wkey;>552(3) — Circumstantial evidence must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis arising from .evidence on tria!.</p> <p>The law requiring that circumstantial evidence must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis, consistent with innocence, does not mean that it "shall exclude every imaginary hypothesis, but has reference to the reasonable hypotheses arising from the evidence adduced upon trial.</p> <p>3. Criminal law &wkey;>787(2) — Charge that failure of accused to testify should not be considered against him or discussed by jury in retirement held not erroneous.</p> <p>In a prosecution for murder, a charge that the failure of accused to testify should-not be considered as a circumstance against him nor discussed by the jury in their retirement was not erroneous. 1</p> <p>4. Criminal law <&wkey;762(5) — Warning in charge against finding verdict by chance or lot held not improper.</p> <p>A warning contained in the court’s charge against finding a verdict by chance or lot, prefaced by the statement, “If you find the defendant guilty, etc.,” held not subject to the interpretation that it indicated that the court believed accused guilty.</p> <p>5. Homicide <&wkey;l66(IO) — Where robbery motive relied upon, evidence that four months prior to homicide deceased carried considerable money on person admissible.</p> <p>In. a prosecution for murder, where the state relied upon robbery as the motive, evidence that deceased in May, preceding the homicide in, September, was in possession of a considerable sum of money which he was accustomed to carry upon his person, was relevant to the issue, and not too remote as to require its exclusion.</p> <p>6. Criminal law &wkey;>338(6) — Character evidence as to persons not in proximity to offense held irrelevant.</p> <p>In a prosecution for murder, the exclusion of evidence that persons who had associated with deceased, but who were last seen in his company about 20 days before the homicide, with no suggestion that they were in such proximity to the offense as rendered an inquiry into their character relevant, “played the fiddle for negroes,” held proper.</p> <p>7. Homicide <&wkey;319 — Overruling motion for new trial for newly discovered evidence of remark of person not in such proximity to crime as would warrant inquiry into his motive to commit it not erroneous.</p> <p>In a prosecution for murder, the overruling of a new trial for newly discovered evidence that one other than accused about 20 days before the homicide had inquired of the witness as to the amount of money the deceased had, stating that it would be good picking to get it, in the absence of evidence of his proximity to the scene of the crime as would make pertinent an inquiry into his motive for, committing it, was not error.</p> <p>8. Criminal law <&wkey;S38(l) — Trial for newly discovered evidence not granted unlegs mov-ant was unaware of purported testimony.</p> <p>A motion for a new trial for newly discovered evidence will not be granted, where it is not affirmatively shown that movant was unaware of the purported testimony set up.</p>