Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

93 Ga. 177

Schaefer v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided October 9, 1893

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1893-10-09

<p>1. Clear and undoubted evidence of the corpus delicti will serve to corroborate a confession made by the accused, and his confession thus supported will serve as sufficient corroboration of the evidence of an accomplice.</p> <p>2. The evidence warranted the verdict, and the newly discovered evidence would not be likely to change the result. There was no error in denying a new trial.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1893-10-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently September 1989

14 state decisions

501893190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

¶1Judgment affirmed.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Bartlett, Henry superior court. April term, 1893.

¶2Schaefer and Bivins were indicted for the murder of Sloan. Schaefer was convicted, with a recommendation to life imprisonment. A new trial was refused, and he excepted. The evidence was voluminous and conflicting. Bivins gave testimony to the effect that he and Schaefer made a plot and went at night, together with one Harrison, to Sloan’s residence for' the purpose of burglary; that on arriving at the premises Bivins refused to go in and Schaefer went alone; 'that Bivins saw Schaefer endeavoring to enter through a window, and walked away 'from the house a little distance,' where he waited until in a few moments he heard 'tlie firing of a pistol and ran off. It appeared that Bivins had on previous occasions sworn falsely about the matter, if his testimony at this trial was true. Other evidence showed that the house was actually entered through the window, and that Sloan was shot while asleep, by the burglar who made his escape unseen. There was some testimony, of a contradictory nature; tendin'g to show admissions by Schaefer that he had done the killing, and numerous circumstances appeared to support this theory. The only ground for new trial, besides the general grounds, was based on newly'discovered'evidence, in brief, as follows: Bivins was tried and convicted,' and while a motion for a new trial in his behalf was pending, he told his counsel, in a consultation relating to a prosecution of this motion, that he knew Schaefer had nothing to do with the shooting, but that he saw Tomlinson do the shooting. After this consultation his counsel dismissed the motion. On the night before the killing Tomlinson was seen in the town where Sloan resided, and seemed to be rather shy. In the month before the murder he was heard to say that Sloan (calling him a vile name) was the cause of his serving out two terms in the chain-gang, and that *179lie intended to kill Sloan. In support of this ground appeared also affidavits to the effect that certain tracks appearing to have been found leading from Sloan’s premises in the direction in which Schaefer probably went, might as well have been made by Tomlinson in going towards the house of some of his relatives.

G-. W. Bryan and W. T. Dicken, for plaintiff in error.J. M. Terrell, attorney-general, and M. 'W. Beck, solicitor-general, contra.'
/93/ga/177 · .json · Public domain