Dodgen v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dodgen v. State

153 S.E. 536, 41 Ga. App. 458, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 929

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 14, 1930

Docket20373

StatusPublished

This text of 153 S.E. 536 (Dodgen 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

Dodgen v. State, 153 S.E. 536, 41 Ga. App. 458, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 929 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The majority of this court hold that the trial court erred in overruling the motion for a mistrial, based upon alleged prejudicial remarks and conduct of the judge and of the solicitor of the city court of Richmond county. It is the opinion of the writer that, under all the particular facts.of the case (including the fact that the motion for a mistrial was not made until the day following the remarks and acts complained of), it has not been shown that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the motion.

[459]*459Decided May 14, 1930. W. D. Irvin, Pierce Brothers, for plaintiff in error. W. Inman Curry, solicitor, contra.

2. The excerpt from the charge of the court, complained of, when considered in the light of the charge as a whole, was not error.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodioorth, JJ., concur. Broyles, C. J., dissents.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The majority of this court hold that the trial court erred in overruling the motion for a mistrial, based upon alleged prejudicial remarks and conduct of the judge and of the solicitor of the city court of Richmond county. It is the opinion of the writer that, under all the particular facts.of the case (including the fact that the motion for a mistrial was not made until the day following the remarks and acts complained of), it has not been shown that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the motion.

[459]*459Decided May 14, 1930. W. D. Irvin, Pierce Brothers, for plaintiff in error. W. Inman Curry, solicitor, contra.

2. The excerpt from the charge of the court, complained of, when considered in the light of the charge as a whole, was not error.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodioorth, JJ., concur. Broyles, C. J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 S.E. 536, 41 Ga. App. 458, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dodgen-v-state-gactapp-1930.