Albea v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Albea v. State

150 S.E. 434, 40 Ga. App. 503, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 608

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 12, 1929

Docket19967

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 150 S.E. 434 (Albea 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

Albea v. State, 150 S.E. 434, 40 Ga. App. 503, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 608 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. “The failure of the court to instruct the jury upon the effect of proof of the good character of the defendant was not error, in the absence of a proper written request. Brantley v. State, 154 Ga. 80 (4) (113 S. E. 200).” O’Bryant v. State, 37 Ga. App. 827 (2) (142 S. E. 306).

2. The verdict has the approval of the trial judge, and we can not say that there is no evidence to support it. “Applications for new trials on the ground that the verdict of the jury is contrary to evidence are addressed to a sound legal discretion to be exercised by the trial judges. When this discretion has been exercised and the motion for a new trial overruled, this court will not interfere when there is any evidence which would justify the jury in reaching the conclusion which is set forth in the verdict.” Rogers v. State, 101 Ga. 561 (28 S. E. 978).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. “The failure of the court to instruct the jury upon the effect of proof of the good character of the defendant was not error, in the absence of a proper written request. Brantley v. State, 154 Ga. 80 (4) (113 S. E. 200).” O’Bryant v. State, 37 Ga. App. 827 (2) (142 S. E. 306).

2. The verdict has the approval of the trial judge, and we can not say that there is no evidence to support it. “Applications for new trials on the ground that the verdict of the jury is contrary to evidence are addressed to a sound legal discretion to be exercised by the trial judges. When this discretion has been exercised and the motion for a new trial overruled, this court will not interfere when there is any evidence which would justify the jury in reaching the conclusion which is set forth in the verdict.” Rogers v. State, 101 Ga. 561 (28 S. E. 978).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 S.E. 434, 40 Ga. App. 503, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albea-v-state-gactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack