Daniel v. State

1 S.E.2d 229, 59 Ga. App. 454, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 321
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 16, 1939
Docket27234
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 1 S.E.2d 229 (Daniel 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
Daniel v. State, 1 S.E.2d 229, 59 Ga. App. 454, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 321 (Ga. Ct. App. 1939).

Opinion

MacIntyre, J.

1. In tlie trial of criminal cases, where tlie guilt of the accused is dependent wholly upon circumstantial evidence, it is tlie duty of the eoui't, without any request, to charge the law of circumstantial evidence, and the failure to so do requires the grant of a new trial. Coney v. State, 18 Ga. App. 112 (88 S. E. 918); Harris v. State, 18 Ga. App. 710 (90 S. E. 370); Glaze v. State, 2 Ga. App. 704 (58 S. E. 1126). However, where the indictment is supported by both circum[455]*455stantial and direct evidence, and the direct evidence is evidence of a confession by the accused which is itself direct and not circumstantial evidence, it was not erroneous for the court, in the absence of an appropriate request, to omit to charge the law of circumstantial evidence. McElroy v. State, 125 Ga. 37 (2) (53 S. E. 759); Smith v. State, 125 Ga. 296 (54 S. E. 127); Griner v. State, 121 Ga. 614 (49 S. E. 700); Perry v. State, 110 Ga. 234 (36 S. E 781). Nor is it ground for a new trial that the judge, in the absence of a. special request so to do, fails to charge as to the weight to be given confessions. Sutton v. State, 17 Ga. App. 713 (88 S. E. 122); Malone v. State, 77 Ga. 767 (5); Sellers v. State, 99 Ga. 212 (25 S. E. 178); Walker v. State, 118 Ga. 34 (3) (44 S. E. 850); Chapman v. State, 28 Ga. App. 107 (2) (110 S. E. 332).

Decided February 16, 1939.

2. The evidence amply supported the verdict and under the foregoing rulings the court did not err in overruling' the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Guerry, J., concur. P. T. Eipp, Loeb 0. Keizhy, for plaintiff in error. L. L. Meadors, solicitor, contra.

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

Related

Jones v. State
389 S.E.2d 402 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1989)
Jefferson v. State
39 S.E.2d 453 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 S.E.2d 229, 59 Ga. App. 454, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-v-state-gactapp-1939.