Edenfield v. State

81 S.E. 253, 14 Ga. App. 401, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 267
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMarch 26, 1914
Docket5367
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 81 S.E. 253 (Edenfield 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
Edenfield v. State, 81 S.E. 253, 14 Ga. App. 401, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 267 (Ga. Ct. App. 1914).

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

1. As the offense of selling intoxicating liquor is not an offense involving moral turpitude, a witness can not be impeached by proof that he violated this law. Wheeler v. State, 4 Ga. App. 325 (61 S. E. 409). The court did not err in excluding testimony to the effect that a witness whom it was sought to impeach was eonsidex-ed a liquor seller, and that his reputation as to selling liquor was bad.

[402]*402Decided March 26, 1914. Indictment for sale oí liquor; from Emanuel superior court— Judge Bawlings. October 18, 1913. W. W. Larsen, for plaintiff in error.

2. The court did not err in instructing the jury that the question as to whether a witness was successfully impeached, or as to whether the witness, if impeached, had been corroborated, or as to whether the jury would believe the witness, even though they might believe he had been impeached by proof of general bad character, were all questions for the -jury’s determination.

3. The court did not err.in overruling the ground of the motion for a new trial which was based upon alleged newly discovered testimony. The evidence alleged to be newly discovered might have been obtained prior to the trial, by the exercise of ordinary diligence; and, iti addition, the alleged newly discovered testimony is merely cumulative or impeaching.

4. The evidence fully warranted the conviction of the accused, and there was no error in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Roan, J., absent.

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

Related

Norman v. State
175 S.E.2d 119 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1970)
Rewis v. State
134 S.E.2d 875 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)
Duke v. Meyers
71 S.E.2d 297 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
Kicklighter v. State
45 S.E.2d 719 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)
Green v. State
195 Ga. 759 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1943)
State v. Malusky
230 N.W. 735 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1930)
State v. Johnson
287 P. 909 (Utah Supreme Court, 1930)
Schill's License
9 Pa. D. & C. 202 (Pennsylvania Department of Justice, 1927)
In Re Bartos
13 F.2d 138 (D. Nebraska, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
81 S.E. 253, 14 Ga. App. 401, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edenfield-v-state-gactapp-1914.