Culberson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Culberson v. State

106 S.E. 923, 26 Ga. App. 648, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 579

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 13, 1921

Docket12199

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 106 S.E. 923 (Culberson 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

Culberson v. State, 106 S.E. 923, 26 Ga. App. 648, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 579 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The amendment to the motion for a new trial is as follows: “ Because upon the trial of said case the court erred in the following point and particular: What happened is as follows: After the witness for the defendant had been examined and cross-examined by the solicitor of said court, the solicitor having excused the witnesses, the judge then, at the conclusion of the evidence of each of the said witnesses for the defendant, 'asked several questions of the said witness, being an unusual practice of said court.” This ground is too vague and indefinite to raise any question for the consideration of this court.

2. As disclosed by the record, there was no evidence to authorize the defendant’s conviction, and the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. J. B. Q. Logan, for plaintiff in error. E. D. Kenyon, solicitor, contra.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The amendment to the motion for a new trial is as follows: “ Because upon the trial of said case the court erred in the following point and particular: What happened is as follows: After the witness for the defendant had been examined and cross-examined by the solicitor of said court, the solicitor having excused the witnesses, the judge then, at the conclusion of the evidence of each of the said witnesses for the defendant, 'asked several questions of the said witness, being an unusual practice of said court.” This ground is too vague and indefinite to raise any question for the consideration of this court.

2. As disclosed by the record, there was no evidence to authorize the defendant’s conviction, and the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. J. B. Q. Logan, for plaintiff in error. E. D. Kenyon, solicitor, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 S.E. 923, 26 Ga. App. 648, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/culberson-v-state-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack