Bland v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bland v. State

45 S.E.2d 723, 76 Ga. App. 252, 1947 Ga. App. LEXIS 425

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 5, 1947

Docket31734.

StatusPublished

This text of 45 S.E.2d 723 (Bland 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

Bland v. State, 45 S.E.2d 723, 76 Ga. App. 252, 1947 Ga. App. LEXIS 425 (Ga. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Townsend, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) 1. While the testimony in this case is not identical with that in Kicklighter v. State, ante, the defendant in that case and the defendant herein having been jointly indicted and tried separately, the facts are sufficiently parallel to authorize this court to apply to this case what was said in the first headnote and the corresponding division of the opinion in the Kicklighter case, except what was there said about the testimony of this defendant as a witness in that case.

The general grounds and the special ground of the amended motion, contending that the evidence was insufficient to establish the venue, are without merit.

2. The' theory of the defendant, that he was innocently acting in good faith on the occasion in question, by helping John Kirkland find and kill his cattle at Kirkland’s instance and request, is presented solely by the statement of the defendant. It is not error, in the absence of a request, to fail to charge on a *254 theory presented solely by the statement of the defendant. See many cases in the Annotated Code under § 38-415, following the catchword, “Charge.” This assignment of error is without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre, P. J., and Gardner, J., concur.

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

Townsend, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) 1. While the testimony in this case is not identical with that in Kicklighter v. State, ante, the defendant in that case and the defendant herein having been jointly indicted and tried separately, the facts are sufficiently parallel to authorize this court to apply to this case what was said in the first headnote and the corresponding division of the opinion in the Kicklighter case, except what was there said about the testimony of this defendant as a witness in that case.

The general grounds and the special ground of the amended motion, contending that the evidence was insufficient to establish the venue, are without merit.

2. The' theory of the defendant, that he was innocently acting in good faith on the occasion in question, by helping John Kirkland find and kill his cattle at Kirkland’s instance and request, is presented solely by the statement of the defendant. It is not error, in the absence of a request, to fail to charge on a *254 theory presented solely by the statement of the defendant. See many cases in the Annotated Code under § 38-415, following the catchword, “Charge.” This assignment of error is without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre, P. J., and Gardner, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 S.E.2d 723, 76 Ga. App. 252, 1947 Ga. App. LEXIS 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bland-v-state-gactapp-1947.