Daniel v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Daniel v. State

17 S.E.2d 91, 66 Ga. App. 59, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 115

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 17, 1941

Docket29191.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 17 S.E.2d 91 (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, 17 S.E.2d 91, 66 Ga. App. 59, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 115 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, J.

This plaintiff in error was convicted on an indictment for burglary containing two counts. He filed a motion for new trial on the usual general grounds and by amendment added one special ground. The court overruled the motion and the defendant excepted. We see no necessity of setting forth the evidence. It amply sustained the verdict; and there is no merit in the general grounds.

The special ground complains that the court erred in overruling a motion for a mistrial based on a statement of a witness, whose place was the subject of an alleged burglary, that he had received certain information during the investigation of the case. The court of his own motion promptly ruled out the evidence, and the solicitor-general also stated that he did not insist on it. After-wards the witness stated: “I got some information. After I got the information I called the officers. In fact, the detectives were being sent out there, I told them that. . .” The court directed the witness: “Don’t tell what you told them.” Under the facts of this case we think the evidence was admissible under the Code, § 38-302. Coleman v. State, 127 Ga. 282 (56 S. E. 417). But, regardless of this, the judge did not err in the ruling complained of in this ground.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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

Gardner, J.

This plaintiff in error was convicted on an indictment for burglary containing two counts. He filed a motion for new trial on the usual general grounds and by amendment added one special ground. The court overruled the motion and the defendant excepted. We see no necessity of setting forth the evidence. It amply sustained the verdict; and there is no merit in the general grounds.

The special ground complains that the court erred in overruling a motion for a mistrial based on a statement of a witness, whose place was the subject of an alleged burglary, that he had received certain information during the investigation of the case. The court of his own motion promptly ruled out the evidence, and the solicitor-general also stated that he did not insist on it. After-wards the witness stated: “I got some information. After I got the information I called the officers. In fact, the detectives were being sent out there, I told them that. . .” The court directed the witness: “Don’t tell what you told them.” Under the facts of this case we think the evidence was admissible under the Code, § 38-302. Coleman v. State, 127 Ga. 282 (56 S. E. 417). But, regardless of this, the judge did not err in the ruling complained of in this ground.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 S.E.2d 91, 66 Ga. App. 59, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-v-state-gactapp-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack