Daniels v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Daniels v. State

99 S.E. 312, 23 Ga. App. 762, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 337

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 16, 1919

Docket10239

StatusPublished

This text of 99 S.E. 312 (Daniels 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

Daniels v. State, 99 S.E. 312, 23 Ga. App. 762, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 337 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Beoyles, P. J.

1. The 1st and 2d special grounds of the motion for a new trial are so incomplete in themselves that it is impossible for this court to determine, without referring to other portions of the record, whether the admission of the evidence therein complained of was material error. These grounds, therefore, under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, can not be considered.

2. The defendant was tried for perjury, it being charged in the indictment, in substance, that as a witness before the grand jury, upon a pending indictment for murder, he falsely swore that he was not present at the scene of the murder, and did not see the killing, nor any one shoot. Upon the trial he admitted that he appeared as a witness before the grand jury and there testified that he was not present at the scene of the murder, and did not see the killing, nor any one shoot, but contended that his testimony was true.' Under these circumstances the law of alibi was not involved in the case, and the judge erred in giving it in charge to the-jury; and a new trial is required.

Judgment reversed.

Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.

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

Beoyles, P. J.

1. The 1st and 2d special grounds of the motion for a new trial are so incomplete in themselves that it is impossible for this court to determine, without referring to other portions of the record, whether the admission of the evidence therein complained of was material error. These grounds, therefore, under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, can not be considered.

2. The defendant was tried for perjury, it being charged in the indictment, in substance, that as a witness before the grand jury, upon a pending indictment for murder, he falsely swore that he was not present at the scene of the murder, and did not see the killing, nor any one shoot. Upon the trial he admitted that he appeared as a witness before the grand jury and there testified that he was not present at the scene of the murder, and did not see the killing, nor any one shoot, but contended that his testimony was true.' Under these circumstances the law of alibi was not involved in the case, and the judge erred in giving it in charge to the-jury; and a new trial is required.

Judgment reversed.

Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 S.E. 312, 23 Ga. App. 762, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniels-v-state-gactapp-1919.