Edmondson v. State

110 S.E. 414, 27 Ga. App. 622, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 312
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedNovember 17, 1921
Docket12719
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 110 S.E. 414 (Edmondson 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
Edmondson v. State, 110 S.E. 414, 27 Ga. App. 622, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 312 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. In the excerpts from the charge of the court upon the subject of the impeaching of witnesses, complained of in the motion for a new trial, there was no error requiring a new trial.

2. The following charge was not error: “The defendant entered upon the trial of his ease with a presumption of innocence in Ms favor, and that presumption remains with Mm throughout the trial of this case, unless it is overcome by proof of guilt under the rule of law,” the court having immediately before this charge properly instructed the [623]*623jury that the burden was upon the State to show that .defendant’s guilt to a reasonable and moral certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt, and having fully explained to them what was a reasonable doubt. See, in this connection, McBeth v. State, 122 Ga. 737 (2) (50 S. E. 931); Richardson v. State, 8 Ga. App. 26 (68 S. E. 518).

Decided November 17, 1921. Conviction of voluntary manslaughter; from Cherokee superi- or court — Judge Blair. July 2, 1921. George F. Gober, Fred Morris, A. J. Henderson, for plaintiff in error. Lindley W. Camp, solicitor-general pro tern., John T. Dorsey, Clay & Blair, contra.

3. There is no substantial merit in the 4th ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, which complains that the court in its charge did not fairly present the contentions of the defendant.

4'. The excerpts from the charge of the court, as complained of in the 5th and 6th grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, contain no material error.

5. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Luhe and Bloodworih, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Jackson v. State
115 S.E. 507 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
110 S.E. 414, 27 Ga. App. 622, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edmondson-v-state-gactapp-1921.