Carter v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Carter v. State

176 S.E. 813, 50 Ga. App. 16, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 599

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 16, 1934

Docket24186

StatusPublished

This text of 176 S.E. 813 (Carter 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

Carter v. State, 176 S.E. 813, 50 Ga. App. 16, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 599 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, O. J.

1. A charge to the jury that “The accused is required to establish an alibi only to the satisfaction of the jury, and the evidence of alibi must be considered with the other testimony in the case,” did not place too great a burden upon the accused by requiring him to establish his defense of an alibi “only to the satisfaction of the jury.” It would have been more accurate to put the word “reasonable” before the word “satisfaction,” but that error or omission does not require a reversal of the judgment. Dedge v. State, 153 Ga. 176 (111 S. E. 547).

2. The complaint of the foregoing charge is the only assignment of error insisted upon in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error; and, that assignment being without merit, the judgment of the superior court refusing to sanction the petition for certiorari must be and is

Affb-med.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, O. J.

1. A charge to the jury that “The accused is required to establish an alibi only to the satisfaction of the jury, and the evidence of alibi must be considered with the other testimony in the case,” did not place too great a burden upon the accused by requiring him to establish his defense of an alibi “only to the satisfaction of the jury.” It would have been more accurate to put the word “reasonable” before the word “satisfaction,” but that error or omission does not require a reversal of the judgment. Dedge v. State, 153 Ga. 176 (111 S. E. 547).

2. The complaint of the foregoing charge is the only assignment of error insisted upon in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error; and, that assignment being without merit, the judgment of the superior court refusing to sanction the petition for certiorari must be and is

Affb-med.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 S.E. 813, 50 Ga. App. 16, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-state-gactapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack