Adams v. State

103 S.E. 475, 25 Ga. App. 394, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 829
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Adams v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 22 Ga. App. 252
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided June 15, 1920·No. 11437·Published

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The sole assignment of error in the bill of exceptions is to the overruling of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, which was based upon the alleged relationship, within the prohibited degree, of one of the jurors to the deceased (whom the defendant was convicted of slaying), and another of the jurors to a named person who had contributed to a fund to employ counsel to assist in the prosecution of the defendant. Under the facts of the case, this court can not determine that, as a matter of law, the alleged relationship was so clearly established that the trial judge erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. See, in this connection, Davis v. State, 150 Ga. 19 (102 S. E. 445); 24 Ga. App. 776 (102 S. E. 378).

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Adams v. State, 103 S.E. 475, 25 Ga. App. 394, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 829 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

103 S.E. 475 (Adams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Davis v. State
102 S.E. 445 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1920)
Davis v. State
102 S.E. 378 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1920)