Coppage v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Coppage v. State

148 S.E.2d 484, 113 Ga. App. 482, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 1102

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 12, 1966

Docket41948

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 148 S.E.2d 484 (Coppage 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

Coppage v. State, 148 S.E.2d 484, 113 Ga. App. 482, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 1102 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

1. “Alibi, as a defense, involves the impossibility of the accused’s presence at the scene of the offense at the time of its commission; and the range of the evidence, in respect to time and place, must be such as reasonably to exclude the possibility of presence.” Code § 38-122. “It is error, even in the absence of request, to fail to charge on the law of alibi, where this is the defendant’s sole defense and is supported not only by his statement but the testimony of witnesses.” Jenkins v. State, 96 Ga. App. 86 (99 SE2d 474). [483]*483See also Hobbs v. State, 8 Ga. App. 53 (68 SE 515); and Mosley v. State, 165 Ga. 290 (140 SE 754).

Submitted April 5, 1966 Decided April 12, 1966. H. B. Edwards, Fred L. Belcher, Hugh D. Wright, for appellant.

2. Where, as in the present case, the sole defense of defendant was that of alibi as raised by defendant in his unsworn statement, and supported by testimony of other witnesses for defendant, under the authorities cited above, the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury, without request, on the law of alibi.

Case remanded for new trial.

Hall and Deen, JJ., concur.

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

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

1. “Alibi, as a defense, involves the impossibility of the accused’s presence at the scene of the offense at the time of its commission; and the range of the evidence, in respect to time and place, must be such as reasonably to exclude the possibility of presence.” Code § 38-122. “It is error, even in the absence of request, to fail to charge on the law of alibi, where this is the defendant’s sole defense and is supported not only by his statement but the testimony of witnesses.” Jenkins v. State, 96 Ga. App. 86 (99 SE2d 474). [483]*483See also Hobbs v. State, 8 Ga. App. 53 (68 SE 515); and Mosley v. State, 165 Ga. 290 (140 SE 754).

Submitted April 5, 1966 Decided April 12, 1966. H. B. Edwards, Fred L. Belcher, Hugh D. Wright, for appellant.

2. Where, as in the present case, the sole defense of defendant was that of alibi as raised by defendant in his unsworn statement, and supported by testimony of other witnesses for defendant, under the authorities cited above, the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury, without request, on the law of alibi.

Case remanded for new trial.

Hall and Deen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 S.E.2d 484, 113 Ga. App. 482, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 1102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coppage-v-state-gactapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack