Crawford v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Crawford v. State

134 S.E. 200, 35 Ga. App. 585, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 1009

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 13, 1926

Docket17437

StatusPublished

This text of 134 S.E. 200 (Crawford 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

Crawford v. State, 134 S.E. 200, 35 Ga. App. 585, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 1009 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodwobth, J.

1. The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the indictment.

2. For no reason alleged are the excerpts from the charge of which complaint is made in grounds 4, .5, and 6 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial erroneous.

3. The evidence to which objection is made in special ground 7 of the motion for a new trial is both material and relevant, and is not inadmissible because prejudicial. Cowart v. State, 30 Ga. App. 289 (117 S. E. 663).

4. The evidence set out in ground 8 of the motion for a new trial; even if it be conceded that “the same was not admissible,” is not of such probative force that its admission could have injured the cause of plaintiff in error.

5. This being the prosecution of an accessory before the fact, the indictment, the verdict, and the sentence of the principal were properly admitted in evidence.

6. There was ample evidence to support the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodwobth, J.

1. The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the indictment.

2. For no reason alleged are the excerpts from the charge of which complaint is made in grounds 4, .5, and 6 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial erroneous.

3. The evidence to which objection is made in special ground 7 of the motion for a new trial is both material and relevant, and is not inadmissible because prejudicial. Cowart v. State, 30 Ga. App. 289 (117 S. E. 663).

4. The evidence set out in ground 8 of the motion for a new trial; even if it be conceded that “the same was not admissible,” is not of such probative force that its admission could have injured the cause of plaintiff in error.

5. This being the prosecution of an accessory before the fact, the indictment, the verdict, and the sentence of the principal were properly admitted in evidence.

6. There was ample evidence to support the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 S.E. 200, 35 Ga. App. 585, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 1009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-state-gactapp-1926.

Opinion

6. There was ample evidence to support the verdict.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack