Busbee v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Busbee v. State

155 S.E. 342, 42 Ga. App. 240, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 306

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 8, 1930

Docket20706

StatusPublished

This text of 155 S.E. 342 (Busbee 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

Busbee v. State, 155 S.E. 342, 42 Ga. App. 240, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 306 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Hie accused, in his statement to the jury, attempted to set up the defense of alibi, and introduced a witness to support that contention. The evidence of the witness, however, failed to establish an alibi, as it only showed that the defendant was not at the scene of the offense on the day before the date of the offense. Under such circumstances the failure of the court to instruct the jury upon the law of alibi was not error, in the absence of an appropriate written request. Paulk v. State, 8 Ga. App. 704 (2) (70 S. E. 50) ; Moore v. State, 17 Ga. App. 344 (2) (86 S. E. 822), and cit.

[241]*241Decided October 8, 1930. H. H. Coates, for plaintiff in error. M. H. Boyer, solicitor-general, contra.

2. The verdict was amply authorized, if not demanded, by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Blopdworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. Hie accused, in his statement to the jury, attempted to set up the defense of alibi, and introduced a witness to support that contention. The evidence of the witness, however, failed to establish an alibi, as it only showed that the defendant was not at the scene of the offense on the day before the date of the offense. Under such circumstances the failure of the court to instruct the jury upon the law of alibi was not error, in the absence of an appropriate written request. Paulk v. State, 8 Ga. App. 704 (2) (70 S. E. 50) ; Moore v. State, 17 Ga. App. 344 (2) (86 S. E. 822), and cit.

[241]*241Decided October 8, 1930. H. H. Coates, for plaintiff in error. M. H. Boyer, solicitor-general, contra.

2. The verdict was amply authorized, if not demanded, by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Blopdworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 S.E. 342, 42 Ga. App. 240, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/busbee-v-state-gactapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack