Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

48 Ga. 607

Hall v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided January 15, 1873

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1873-01-15

Criminal law. Res gestae. Evidence. Before Judge Hopkins. Eulton Superior Court. April Term, 1872. Hall was placed upon trial for the offense of an assault with intent to commit murder, alleged to have been perpetrated upon the person of one Thomas Cushman, on December 5th, 1871. The indictment also contained a count charging defendant with the offense of shooting at said Cushman, not in his own defense, nor under circumstances of justification.

Cited in Black's (1910)’s definition of “Res” · Black's (1910)’s definition of “Res gestae”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1873-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently October 1962

1 federal appellate · 21 state decisions

601873188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McCay, Judge.

¶1The res gestae of a transaction is what is done during the progress of it, or so nearly upon the actual occurrence as fairly to be treated as cotemporaneous with it. No precise point of time can be fixed a priori where the res gestae ends. Each case turns on its own circumstances. Indeed, the inquiry is rather into events than into the precise time which has elapsed. Is the proof offered of a matter fairly a part of the same transaction? Is it an event happening naturally and spontaneously as a part of the occurrence under investigation? If so, the law permits it *456to be proven as part of it, since the whole scene, as it has transpired, ought to appear to the tribunal called upon to determine its character. Matters occurring before or after, that is, before the transaction begun or *after it ended, are not part of it. To make them such, they must be so nearly connected with the actual occurrence as to be without the suspicion of afterthought or forethought: Rev. Code, section 3720. They must be within the shadow, as it were, of the transaction itself. Is that so in this case? The quarrel was over, some minutes had elapsed, the parties had separated. The prisoner had been arrested. He had waited at the cloak room for his over-coat, in charge of the officer; that had been obtained, and the officer and he had gone some one hundred and fifty yards, towards the guard-house. The occurrence was over — completely over. New events had occurred, and what the prisoner said can, by no fair inference, be made part of the event in which this shooting occurred. It is not so closely connected with the event as to be free from all suspicion of afterthought or device. Indeed, there seems to us no reason why any statement made by him at any time is not admissible if this is. It has, to one hearing it, no force, except that given to it by its reasonableness or by the manner of the narrator, or his character. As such matter, the prisoner could have made it on his trial. But it has not, in our judgment, any force as a part of the spontaneous acts going to make up the whole transaction, at the time, nor is so closely connected with the occurrence as to be without the suspicion of afterthought.

¶2Judgment affirmed.

/48/ga/607 · .json · Public domain