Boyd v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Boyd v. State

86 S.E. 411, 17 Ga. App. 162, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 302

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 22, 1915

Docket6495

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 86 S.E. 411 (Boyd 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

Boyd v. State, 86 S.E. 411, 17 Ga. App. 162, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 302 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

1. Error is assigned upon the refusal of the court to eon- ' tinue the ease on account of the absence of a material witness for the defendant. From undisputed testimony it appears, that while a subpoena had been issued for the missing witness six months before the trial, the sheriff was unable to locate him; that the subpoena had never been served; that this witness had at a previous term of the court forfeited his bond in a criminal case then pending against him in the same court, and that he was not a resident of the State. The motion for a continuance failing to meet the requirements of section 987 of the Penal Code, the court did not err in overruling it. Howard v. State, 7 Ga. App. 61 (65 S. E. 1076).

2. The excerpt from the charge of the court, complained of in the second ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, is a correct statement of the law, and was authorized by the evidence. In any view, under the facts of the case, it was not harmful to the defendant.

3. The other assignments of error, complaining of certain portions of the charge, are entirely without merit.

4. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

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

Broyles, J.

1. Error is assigned upon the refusal of the court to eon- ' tinue the ease on account of the absence of a material witness for the defendant. From undisputed testimony it appears, that while a subpoena had been issued for the missing witness six months before the trial, the sheriff was unable to locate him; that the subpoena had never been served; that this witness had at a previous term of the court forfeited his bond in a criminal case then pending against him in the same court, and that he was not a resident of the State. The motion for a continuance failing to meet the requirements of section 987 of the Penal Code, the court did not err in overruling it. Howard v. State, 7 Ga. App. 61 (65 S. E. 1076).

2. The excerpt from the charge of the court, complained of in the second ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, is a correct statement of the law, and was authorized by the evidence. In any view, under the facts of the case, it was not harmful to the defendant.

3. The other assignments of error, complaining of certain portions of the charge, are entirely without merit.

4. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 S.E. 411, 17 Ga. App. 162, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-v-state-gactapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack