Cooper v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cooper v. State

187 S.E. 889, 54 Ga. App. 416, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 608

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 23, 1936

Docket25900

StatusPublished

This text of 187 S.E. 889 (Cooper 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

Cooper v. State, 187 S.E. 889, 54 Ga. App. 416, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 608 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Guerry, J.

In the trial of one indicted for the offense of operating an automobile over a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, the solicitor argued to the jury: “I don’t know how many of the jury have children between the ages of three and fourteen years. Statistics show that one out of three children are either hurt, maimed, or killed by automobile accidents. We must do something to stop this. . . Last night about ten o’clock some one drove an automobile rapidly up Broad Street here in Rome, and ran over a man and his wife. They are now over here in the hospital. We must stop this.” Counsel for the defendant objected to this argument, and asked that a mistrial be declared. The court overruled the objection, holding that the solicitor "could make the statement as an illustration in his argument” (quoted from approved ground of motion for new trial), and refused to declare a mistrial. Under former rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court, this argument was irrelevant and prejudicial; and objection having been properly made, a new trial must be granted. Washington v. State, 87 Ga. 12 (3) (13 S. E. 131); Hudson v. State, 101 Ga. 520 (3), 524 (28 S. E. 1010); Ivey v. State, 113 Ga. 1062 (39 S. E. 423, 54 L. R. A. 959); Fair v. State, 168 Ga. 409 (148 S. E. 144); Bryan v. State, 36 Ga. App. 656 (137 S. E. 797); Hammond v. State, 51 Ga. App. 225 (179 S. E. 841). The judge erred in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Guerry, J.

In the trial of one indicted for the offense of operating an automobile over a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, the solicitor argued to the jury: “I don’t know how many of the jury have children between the ages of three and fourteen years. Statistics show that one out of three children are either hurt, maimed, or killed by automobile accidents. We must do something to stop this. . . Last night about ten o’clock some one drove an automobile rapidly up Broad Street here in Rome, and ran over a man and his wife. They are now over here in the hospital. We must stop this.” Counsel for the defendant objected to this argument, and asked that a mistrial be declared. The court overruled the objection, holding that the solicitor "could make the statement as an illustration in his argument” (quoted from approved ground of motion for new trial), and refused to declare a mistrial. Under former rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court, this argument was irrelevant and prejudicial; and objection having been properly made, a new trial must be granted. Washington v. State, 87 Ga. 12 (3) (13 S. E. 131); Hudson v. State, 101 Ga. 520 (3), 524 (28 S. E. 1010); Ivey v. State, 113 Ga. 1062 (39 S. E. 423, 54 L. R. A. 959); Fair v. State, 168 Ga. 409 (148 S. E. 144); Bryan v. State, 36 Ga. App. 656 (137 S. E. 797); Hammond v. State, 51 Ga. App. 225 (179 S. E. 841). The judge erred in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 S.E. 889, 54 Ga. App. 416, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooper-v-state-gactapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack