Buchanan v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Buchanan v. State

8 S.E.2d 695, 62 Ga. App. 541, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 342

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 22, 1940

Docket28279.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 8 S.E.2d 695 (Buchanan 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

Buchanan v. State, 8 S.E.2d 695, 62 Ga. App. 541, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 342 (Ga. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. “The law of fornication is not involved and should not be given in charge to the jury on a trial for seduction where the evidence for the State makes a case of seduction and the defense made by the accused is that he never had sexual intercourse with the person alleged to have been seduced.” Smith v. State, 29 Ga. App. 216 (5) (114 S. E. 722); Kiser v. State, 41 Ga. App. 568 (153 S. E. 620). Under the foregoing ruling and the facts of the instant case, the failure of the court to give in charge to the jury the law of fornication was not error.

2. Under the facts of the instant case as shown by the record, which includes the judge’s note embodied in the order denying a new trial, the refusal to declare a mistrial, on motion based on alleged improper remarks made in the argument of associate counsel for the State, was not error. Conceding, but not deciding, that the remarks were not authorized as legal deductions from the evidence, it is stated in the judge’s note (which is controlling on the facts) that he rebuked counsel for making the alleged improper remarks, and instructed the jury not to consider them, and that counsel thereupon apologized for making the remarks, withdrew them, and asked the jury to disregard them. Under these circumstances it does not appear that the judge abused his discretion in overruling the motion.

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Querry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. “The law of fornication is not involved and should not be given in charge to the jury on a trial for seduction where the evidence for the State makes a case of seduction and the defense made by the accused is that he never had sexual intercourse with the person alleged to have been seduced.” Smith v. State, 29 Ga. App. 216 (5) (114 S. E. 722); Kiser v. State, 41 Ga. App. 568 (153 S. E. 620). Under the foregoing ruling and the facts of the instant case, the failure of the court to give in charge to the jury the law of fornication was not error.

2. Under the facts of the instant case as shown by the record, which includes the judge’s note embodied in the order denying a new trial, the refusal to declare a mistrial, on motion based on alleged improper remarks made in the argument of associate counsel for the State, was not error. Conceding, but not deciding, that the remarks were not authorized as legal deductions from the evidence, it is stated in the judge’s note (which is controlling on the facts) that he rebuked counsel for making the alleged improper remarks, and instructed the jury not to consider them, and that counsel thereupon apologized for making the remarks, withdrew them, and asked the jury to disregard them. Under these circumstances it does not appear that the judge abused his discretion in overruling the motion.

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Querry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 S.E.2d 695, 62 Ga. App. 541, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buchanan-v-state-gactapp-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack