Dixon v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dixon v. State

153 S.E. 227, 41 Ga. App. 429, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 639

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 16, 1930

Docket20328

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 153 S.E. 227 (Dixon 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

Dixon v. State, 153 S.E. 227, 41 Ga. App. 429, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 639 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. The court is alleged to have erred in charging the jury that “the State further contends that in so far as the case rests upon circumstantial evidence, that by same it has established the guilt of the defendant to that degree of certainty required by law.” This excerpt-standing alone might be considered as an expression of the court as to what had been proved; but it is but a part of a sentence, and when the whole is considered it will be seen that the court is but stating the contention of the State, and that when the entire sentence is considered it contains no error; for the portion of the sentence not quoted in the ground is as follows: “that is, to a moral and reasonable certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt.” Eor no reason urged against this portion of the charge in the several grounds of the motion for a new trial is it error.

2. There is some evidence authorizing the verdict, which is approved by the trial judge. When this is true, and no error of law has been committed, under repeated and uniform rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court, a reviewing court is powerless to interfere. See Smith v. Barr, 32 Ga. App. 53 (8) (122 S. E. 626); Johnson v. State, 33 Ga. App. 148 (125 S. E. 734).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., concurs. Luke, J., dissents.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. The court is alleged to have erred in charging the jury that “the State further contends that in so far as the case rests upon circumstantial evidence, that by same it has established the guilt of the defendant to that degree of certainty required by law.” This excerpt-standing alone might be considered as an expression of the court as to what had been proved; but it is but a part of a sentence, and when the whole is considered it will be seen that the court is but stating the contention of the State, and that when the entire sentence is considered it contains no error; for the portion of the sentence not quoted in the ground is as follows: “that is, to a moral and reasonable certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt.” Eor no reason urged against this portion of the charge in the several grounds of the motion for a new trial is it error.

2. There is some evidence authorizing the verdict, which is approved by the trial judge. When this is true, and no error of law has been committed, under repeated and uniform rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court, a reviewing court is powerless to interfere. See Smith v. Barr, 32 Ga. App. 53 (8) (122 S. E. 626); Johnson v. State, 33 Ga. App. 148 (125 S. E. 734).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., concurs. Luke, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 S.E. 227, 41 Ga. App. 429, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dixon-v-state-gactapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack