Edwards v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Edwards v. State

123 S.E. 30, 32 Ga. App. 28, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 231

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 15, 1924

Docket15274

StatusPublished

This text of 123 S.E. 30 (Edwards 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

Edwards v. State, 123 S.E. 30, 32 Ga. App. 28, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 231 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

.1. In the trial of an indictment for assault with intent to murder, the person assaulted is • a competent witness against the defendant, although testimony other than his, adduced upon the same trial, may tend to show that his wife, though not jointly indicted with the defendant on trial, was in fact an accomplice of the defendant in the commission of the alleged offense, and that the ultimate object and purpose of both in so attempting to kill the husband was to remove an obstacle to adulterous intercourse, as practiced in the past and contemplated for the future, by and between the defendant and the wife of the witness. Penal Code (1910), § 1037 (4) ; Williams v. State, 69 Ga. 13 (15); Whitlow v. State, 74 Ga. 819 (2); Askea v. State, 75 Ga. 356 (3); Rivers v. State, 118 Ga. 42 (1) (44 S. E. 859).

(a) Such adultery not being alleged in the indictment, and not being in any manner an essential element of the offense charged, the rule applicable to proceedings instituted in consequence of adultery is not here in point.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the record discloses no reversible error.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodnoorlh, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

.1. In the trial of an indictment for assault with intent to murder, the person assaulted is • a competent witness against the defendant, although testimony other than his, adduced upon the same trial, may tend to show that his wife, though not jointly indicted with the defendant on trial, was in fact an accomplice of the defendant in the commission of the alleged offense, and that the ultimate object and purpose of both in so attempting to kill the husband was to remove an obstacle to adulterous intercourse, as practiced in the past and contemplated for the future, by and between the defendant and the wife of the witness. Penal Code (1910), § 1037 (4) ; Williams v. State, 69 Ga. 13 (15); Whitlow v. State, 74 Ga. 819 (2); Askea v. State, 75 Ga. 356 (3); Rivers v. State, 118 Ga. 42 (1) (44 S. E. 859).

(a) Such adultery not being alleged in the indictment, and not being in any manner an essential element of the offense charged, the rule applicable to proceedings instituted in consequence of adultery is not here in point.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the record discloses no reversible error.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodnoorlh, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 S.E. 30, 32 Ga. App. 28, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-state-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack