Bell v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Bell v. State

259 S.E.2d 465, 244 Ga. 211, 1979 Ga. LEXIS 1186

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 10, 1979

Docket35082

StatusPublished

This text of 259 S.E.2d 465 (Bell v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bell v. State, 259 S.E.2d 465, 244 Ga. 211, 1979 Ga. LEXIS 1186 (Ga. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Marshall, Justice.

In this proceeding under the provisions of Code Ann. § 27-1503 (b) (Ga. L. 1977, pp. 1293, 1295) on the appellant’s application for her release from the custody of the Department of Human Resources, the evidence authorized the trial court’s finding adverse to releasing the appellant on the ground that she meets the civil commitment criterion of Code Ann. § 88-501 (v) (Ga. L. 1978, pp. 1789, 1790).

The probative value of the testimony of the appellant’s expert medical witness as to the mental condition of the appellant was not destroyed by the fact that, in addition to testifying as to facts having probative value under Code § 38-1710 which supported the court’s finding, she went further to express her opinion that the appellant does not fit the criteria of the statute as it is worded. This was merely a legal conclusion, which the trial judge as the finder of fact in this bench trial could disregard. Cf. Morgan v. Bell, 189 Ga. 432 (3, 4) (5 SE2d 897) (1939) and cits.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Marshall, Justice.

In this proceeding under the provisions of Code Ann. § 27-1503 (b) (Ga. L. 1977, pp. 1293, 1295) on the appellant’s application for her release from the custody of the Department of Human Resources, the evidence authorized the trial court’s finding adverse to releasing the appellant on the ground that she meets the civil commitment criterion of Code Ann. § 88-501 (v) (Ga. L. 1978, pp. 1789, 1790).

The probative value of the testimony of the appellant’s expert medical witness as to the mental condition of the appellant was not destroyed by the fact that, in addition to testifying as to facts having probative value under Code § 38-1710 which supported the court’s finding, she went further to express her opinion that the appellant does not fit the criteria of the statute as it is worded. This was merely a legal conclusion, which the trial judge as the finder of fact in this bench trial could disregard. Cf. Morgan v. Bell, 189 Ga. 432 (3, 4) (5 SE2d 897) (1939) and cits.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 S.E.2d 465, 244 Ga. 211, 1979 Ga. LEXIS 1186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-state-ga-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack