Brown v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Brown v. State

170 S.E. 105, 47 Ga. App. 188, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 335

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 7, 1933

Docket22947

StatusPublished

This text of 170 S.E. 105 (Brown 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

Brown v. State, 170 S.E. 105, 47 Ga. App. 188, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 335 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Guerry, J.

1. The verdict finding the accused guilty of robbery is amply supported by the evidence.

2. The testimony of the prosecutor as follows: “Jim Brown [the defendant] knew where I worked and that I went to work early in the morning,” is not necessarily objectionable as a conclusion, it having been shown on the trial that both the defendant and the prosecutor knew each other and that they worked for the same railroad company. However, if objectionable in a strict legal sense, the admission of such testimony could not have been harmful to the defendant, as the prosecutor positively identified him as the man who robbed him.

3. The other grounds of the motion for new trial are without merit and show no cause for a reversal of the judgment of the lower court.

4. The court, therefore, did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Guerry, J.

1. The verdict finding the accused guilty of robbery is amply supported by the evidence.

2. The testimony of the prosecutor as follows: “Jim Brown [the defendant] knew where I worked and that I went to work early in the morning,” is not necessarily objectionable as a conclusion, it having been shown on the trial that both the defendant and the prosecutor knew each other and that they worked for the same railroad company. However, if objectionable in a strict legal sense, the admission of such testimony could not have been harmful to the defendant, as the prosecutor positively identified him as the man who robbed him.

3. The other grounds of the motion for new trial are without merit and show no cause for a reversal of the judgment of the lower court.

4. The court, therefore, did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 S.E. 105, 47 Ga. App. 188, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-state-gactapp-1933.