Adams v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Adams v. State

162 S.E. 164, 44 Ga. App. 573, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 389

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 12, 1932

Docket22017

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 162 S.E. 164 (Adams v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. State, 162 S.E. 164, 44 Ga. App. 573, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 389 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. “This court has no power to correct a mistake in a brief of evidence which has been approved by the trial judge and filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court. And this is true notwithstanding the trial judge may afterwards sign a certificate stating that the brief as approved and filed contains such mistake.” Minhinnett v. State, 106 Ga. 141 (2) (32 S. E. 19) ; Jones v. State, 64 Ga. 698 (2). Under the foregoing ruling this court can not consider the additional evidence sent up by agreement of counsel for both parties to this case and with the approval of the trial judge.

2. The charge of the court upon the subject of “confessions” was authorized by the evidence and was not erroneous for any reason assigned.

3. The alleged newly discovered evidence was merely cumulative, and was not of such a character as would probably cause a different verdict upon another trial.

4. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Lulce, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. “This court has no power to correct a mistake in a brief of evidence which has been approved by the trial judge and filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court. And this is true notwithstanding the trial judge may afterwards sign a certificate stating that the brief as approved and filed contains such mistake.” Minhinnett v. State, 106 Ga. 141 (2) (32 S. E. 19) ; Jones v. State, 64 Ga. 698 (2). Under the foregoing ruling this court can not consider the additional evidence sent up by agreement of counsel for both parties to this case and with the approval of the trial judge.

2. The charge of the court upon the subject of “confessions” was authorized by the evidence and was not erroneous for any reason assigned.

3. The alleged newly discovered evidence was merely cumulative, and was not of such a character as would probably cause a different verdict upon another trial.

4. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Lulce, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 S.E. 164, 44 Ga. App. 573, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-state-gactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack