Cardell v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cardell v. State

27 S.E.2d 250, 70 Ga. App. 45, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 232

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 9, 1943

Docket30141.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 S.E.2d 250 (Cardell 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

Cardell v. State, 27 S.E.2d 250, 70 Ga. App. 45, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 232 (Ga. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of stabbing. The evidence, while in sharp conflict, authorized the verdict.

Special ground 1 of the motion for new trial is as follows: “Because the court erred in charging the jury as follows: ‘Moral and reasonable certainty is all that can be attained in legal investigation. In civil cases the preponderance of the evidence is sufficient to produce this mental conviction, but in criminal cases a greater strength of mental conviction is necessary to justify a verdict of guilty.5 To which charge of the court movant excepted and now excepts and assigns the same as error.55 The only other special ground reads: “Because the court erred in giving in charge tó the jury as follows: ‘The accused has, in the exercise of his right, made in your hearing a statement. It is not under oath and shall have such weight and credit as the jury thinks proper to give it. You may believe the statement of the defendant in preference to the sworn testimony in the case.5 To which charge of the court movant excepted, and now excepts and assigns the same as error.55 In neither of these grounds is it pointed out wherein the excerpt from the charge complained of was error. See Trammell v. Shirley, 38 Ga. App. 710, 714, Rule 9 (145 S. E. 486). Furthermore, neither excerpt complained of, when considered in the light of the entire charge and the facts of the case, discloses reversible error. The denial of a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of stabbing. The evidence, while in sharp conflict, authorized the verdict.

Special ground 1 of the motion for new trial is as follows: “Because the court erred in charging the jury as follows: ‘Moral and reasonable certainty is all that can be attained in legal investigation. In civil cases the preponderance of the evidence is sufficient to produce this mental conviction, but in criminal cases a greater strength of mental conviction is necessary to justify a verdict of guilty.5 To which charge of the court movant excepted and now excepts and assigns the same as error.55 The only other special ground reads: “Because the court erred in giving in charge tó the jury as follows: ‘The accused has, in the exercise of his right, made in your hearing a statement. It is not under oath and shall have such weight and credit as the jury thinks proper to give it. You may believe the statement of the defendant in preference to the sworn testimony in the case.5 To which charge of the court movant excepted, and now excepts and assigns the same as error.55 In neither of these grounds is it pointed out wherein the excerpt from the charge complained of was error. See Trammell v. Shirley, 38 Ga. App. 710, 714, Rule 9 (145 S. E. 486). Furthermore, neither excerpt complained of, when considered in the light of the entire charge and the facts of the case, discloses reversible error. The denial of a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 S.E.2d 250, 70 Ga. App. 45, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cardell-v-state-gactapp-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack