Collins v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Collins v. State

92 S.E. 229, 19 Ga. App. 751, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 348

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 21, 1917

Docket8607

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 92 S.E. 229 (Collins 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

Collins v. State, 92 S.E. 229, 19 Ga. App. 751, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 348 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

1. Under the particular facts of this case and the possible inferences deducible therefrom as to the bad faith of the defendant in making the motion for a continuance, and especially in view of his failure to show that he expected to “be able to procure the testimony of the witness at the next term of the court” (Penal Code, § 987), notwithstanding his testimony that he expected to show certain defensive facts by the absent witness at some time and place unnamed, this court can not hold that the trial judge abused his discretion in overruling the motion for a continuance.

2. The only special ground in the motion for a new trial is that dealt with above;, and the evidence amply supported the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

George and Luhe, JJ., concur.

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

Wade, C. J.

1. Under the particular facts of this case and the possible inferences deducible therefrom as to the bad faith of the defendant in making the motion for a continuance, and especially in view of his failure to show that he expected to “be able to procure the testimony of the witness at the next term of the court” (Penal Code, § 987), notwithstanding his testimony that he expected to show certain defensive facts by the absent witness at some time and place unnamed, this court can not hold that the trial judge abused his discretion in overruling the motion for a continuance.

2. The only special ground in the motion for a new trial is that dealt with above;, and the evidence amply supported the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

George and Luhe, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.E. 229, 19 Ga. App. 751, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-state-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack