Bryant v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bryant v. State

157 S.E. 923, 43 Ga. App. 85, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 186

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 31, 1931

Docket21074

StatusPublished

This text of 157 S.E. 923 (Bryant 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

Bryant v. State, 157 S.E. 923, 43 Ga. App. 85, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 186 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

Bill Bryant was charged with assault and. battery on Georgia Ann Bryant. On the trial of the case it developed that Georgia Ann Bryant, upon whom the assault was made, was his wife. After evidence of other witnesses was introduced, which made out a case against the accused, he offered his wife as a witness in his behalf, but the court ruled that she was incompetent to testify. The defendant made a statement in which he denied his guilt. The jury returned a. verdict against him. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and he excepted.

The court properly ruled that the wife was an incompetent witness. Penal Code (1910), § 1037 (par. 4). The rejection of the evidence set forth in special ground 1 of the motion for a new trial was not error.

The evidence supports the verdict.

Judgment affirmed. Broyles, O. J., and Luhe, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

Bill Bryant was charged with assault and. battery on Georgia Ann Bryant. On the trial of the case it developed that Georgia Ann Bryant, upon whom the assault was made, was his wife. After evidence of other witnesses was introduced, which made out a case against the accused, he offered his wife as a witness in his behalf, but the court ruled that she was incompetent to testify. The defendant made a statement in which he denied his guilt. The jury returned a. verdict against him. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and he excepted.

The court properly ruled that the wife was an incompetent witness. Penal Code (1910), § 1037 (par. 4). The rejection of the evidence set forth in special ground 1 of the motion for a new trial was not error.

The evidence supports the verdict.

Judgment affirmed. Broyles, O. J., and Luhe, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 S.E. 923, 43 Ga. App. 85, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryant-v-state-gactapp-1931.