Bowman v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bowman v. State

135 S.E. 757, 36 Ga. App. 123, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 817

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 9, 1926

Docket17612

StatusPublished

This text of 135 S.E. 757 (Bowman 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

Bowman v. State, 135 S.E. 757, 36 Ga. App. 123, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 817 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

Tbe defendant was being tried for selling' whisky and having whisky in his possession. The arresting officer testified for the State: “We went to the home of the defendant on account of a report made to us that he had and was selling whisky.” Hpon objection by the defendant the court properly excluded the words “that he had and was selling whisky,” and instructed the jury not to consider this part of the evidence. He left in, however, the rest of the testimony, to wit, “We went [124]*124to the home of the defendant on account of a report.” Subsequently the attorney for the State, in his argument to the jury, said: “It is easy for you to infer what the report was that caused the officers to go to the home of this defendant; it was that it was a whisky joint.” The court erred in denying the defendant’s timely motion for a mistrial, based upon these improper and prejudicial remarks.

Judgment reversed.

Lulce, J., concurs. Bloodworlh, 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.

Tbe defendant was being tried for selling' whisky and having whisky in his possession. The arresting officer testified for the State: “We went to the home of the defendant on account of a report made to us that he had and was selling whisky.” Hpon objection by the defendant the court properly excluded the words “that he had and was selling whisky,” and instructed the jury not to consider this part of the evidence. He left in, however, the rest of the testimony, to wit, “We went [124]*124to the home of the defendant on account of a report.” Subsequently the attorney for the State, in his argument to the jury, said: “It is easy for you to infer what the report was that caused the officers to go to the home of this defendant; it was that it was a whisky joint.” The court erred in denying the defendant’s timely motion for a mistrial, based upon these improper and prejudicial remarks.

Judgment reversed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 S.E. 757, 36 Ga. App. 123, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowman-v-state-gactapp-1926.