Catchings v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Catchings v. State

65 S.E. 815, 6 Ga. App. 790, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 472

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 13, 1909

Docket2083

StatusPublished

This text of 65 S.E. 815 (Catchings 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

Catchings v. State, 65 S.E. 815, 6 Ga. App. 790, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 472 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

The State relied on the testimony of a single witness. The brief of the evidence does not disclose any formal impeachment of the witness, unless it arose through the conflict between his testimony and what the defendant stated -as to what the witness had previously said. The court charged the jury: “Where a witness is attacked by contradictory evidence or by proof [791]*791of conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude, it is for the jury to say whether or not such witness has spoken the truth. In determining this question you may look to the evidence and say whether or not there are any corroborating circumstances in the case, and, from all, say whether or not such witness has spoken the truth, and if he has you would be authorized to base your verdict on the same.” The objection is that the charge was not authorized by the evidence, — that there was no corroboration of the testimony of the State’s witness. A comparison of the case of McCollum v. State, 119 Ga. 308 (46 S. E. 413, 100 Am. St. R. 171), with the one at bar, discloses such a similarity as to make the decision in that case directly applicable and controlling.

Judgment affk'med.

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

Powell, J.

The State relied on the testimony of a single witness. The brief of the evidence does not disclose any formal impeachment of the witness, unless it arose through the conflict between his testimony and what the defendant stated -as to what the witness had previously said. The court charged the jury: “Where a witness is attacked by contradictory evidence or by proof [791]*791of conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude, it is for the jury to say whether or not such witness has spoken the truth. In determining this question you may look to the evidence and say whether or not there are any corroborating circumstances in the case, and, from all, say whether or not such witness has spoken the truth, and if he has you would be authorized to base your verdict on the same.” The objection is that the charge was not authorized by the evidence, — that there was no corroboration of the testimony of the State’s witness. A comparison of the case of McCollum v. State, 119 Ga. 308 (46 S. E. 413, 100 Am. St. R. 171), with the one at bar, discloses such a similarity as to make the decision in that case directly applicable and controlling.

Judgment affk'med.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 S.E. 815, 6 Ga. App. 790, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/catchings-v-state-gactapp-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack