Edenfield v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Edenfield v. State

141 S.E. 220, 37 Ga. App. 628, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 536

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 10, 1928

Docket18574

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 141 S.E. 220 (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, 141 S.E. 220, 37 Ga. App. 628, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 536 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Bi.oodwortii, J.

1. Even if it be admitted that the court erred in permitting a witness for the' defendant on eross-eXamination to swear, over objection: “I plead guilty to possessing liquor at the last term of court,” as tending to impeach the witness, a new trial should not be granted the defendant because of this evidence, as another witness swore to the same fact and it went to the jury without objection.

2. A ground of a motion for a new trial which states that certain evidence was admitted over “the timely objection of counsel,” and does not show what the objection then urged was, is not complete. It must affirmatively appear what objection was then and there urged, and that the court passed upon this specific objection. It is not sufficient to say that an objection was urged, and- later, in the motion, give reasons why the evidence should not have been admitted. Grace v. McKinney, 112 Ga. 425 (2) (37 S. E. 737); Butts v. State, 118 Ga. 750 (45 S. E. 593); Georgia Railroad &c. Co. v. Lloyd, 129 Ga. 650 (2), 651 (59 S. E. 801). See, in this connection, Duke v. Ayers, 163 Ga. 444, 452 (136 S. E. 410).

3. “Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, a special ground of a motion for a new trial must be complete within itself. When, for a proper understanding of it, it is necessary to refer to another special ground of the motion, or to the record, it will not be considered.” Jennings v. State, 22 Ga. App. 550 (96 S. E. 397).

4. “Prejudicial remarks of the court in the presence and hearing of the jury are not ground for a new trial, unless a -motion to declare a mistrial on that ground has been made and refused.” Harrison v. State, 20 Ga. App. 157 (6) (92 S. E. 970). See Perdue v. State, 135 Ga. 277 (69 S. E. 184).

5. The rulings in the foregoing cases dispose of special grounds 5, 6, and 7 of the motion for a new trial adversely to the contentions of the plaintiff in error.

6. We can not say that there is no evidence to support the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur. 1. W. Rountree, Alfred Herrington Jr., for plaintiff in error. A. 3. Bradley, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Bi.oodwortii, J.

1. Even if it be admitted that the court erred in permitting a witness for the' defendant on eross-eXamination to swear, over objection: “I plead guilty to possessing liquor at the last term of court,” as tending to impeach the witness, a new trial should not be granted the defendant because of this evidence, as another witness swore to the same fact and it went to the jury without objection.

2. A ground of a motion for a new trial which states that certain evidence was admitted over “the timely objection of counsel,” and does not show what the objection then urged was, is not complete. It must affirmatively appear what objection was then and there urged, and that the court passed upon this specific objection. It is not sufficient to say that an objection was urged, and- later, in the motion, give reasons why the evidence should not have been admitted. Grace v. McKinney, 112 Ga. 425 (2) (37 S. E. 737); Butts v. State, 118 Ga. 750 (45 S. E. 593); Georgia Railroad &c. Co. v. Lloyd, 129 Ga. 650 (2), 651 (59 S. E. 801). See, in this connection, Duke v. Ayers, 163 Ga. 444, 452 (136 S. E. 410).

3. “Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, a special ground of a motion for a new trial must be complete within itself. When, for a proper understanding of it, it is necessary to refer to another special ground of the motion, or to the record, it will not be considered.” Jennings v. State, 22 Ga. App. 550 (96 S. E. 397).

4. “Prejudicial remarks of the court in the presence and hearing of the jury are not ground for a new trial, unless a -motion to declare a mistrial on that ground has been made and refused.” Harrison v. State, 20 Ga. App. 157 (6) (92 S. E. 970). See Perdue v. State, 135 Ga. 277 (69 S. E. 184).

5. The rulings in the foregoing cases dispose of special grounds 5, 6, and 7 of the motion for a new trial adversely to the contentions of the plaintiff in error.

6. We can not say that there is no evidence to support the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur. 1. W. Rountree, Alfred Herrington Jr., for plaintiff in error. A. 3. Bradley, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 S.E. 220, 37 Ga. App. 628, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edenfield-v-state-gactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack