Edwards v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Edwards v. State

165 S.E.2d 926, 119 Ga. App. 29, 1969 Ga. App. LEXIS 962

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 14, 1969

Docket44090

StatusPublished

This text of 165 S.E.2d 926 (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, 165 S.E.2d 926, 119 Ga. App. 29, 1969 Ga. App. LEXIS 962 (Ga. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, Chief Judge.

1. The determination of the weight and credibility of the evidence, including the testimony of the prosecuting witness, was within the province of the jury. Wheeler v. State, 112 Ga. 43 (37 SE 126); Harper v. State, 201 Ga. 10 (39 SE2d 45); Reece v. State, 208 Ga. 165 (66 SE2d 133); Whitus v. State, 222 Ga. 103 (149 SE2d 130). The general grounds of the motion for new trial are without merit.

2. The right to have representation by counsel at an identification line-up, as provided in United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218 (87 SC 1926, 18 LE2d 1149) applies to line-ups held after June 12, 1967, hence not to the one in the instant case, which was held on June 10, 1967. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293 (87 SC 1967, 18 LE2d 1199); People v. Feggans, 67 AC 447, 62 Cal. Rptr. 419 (432 P2d 21); Crume v. Beto, 383 F2d 36, 38. The special ground of the motion for new trial as amended is without merit.

The court did not err in rendering judgment on the verdict and in overruling the motion for new trial as amended.

Judgment affirmed.

Pannell and Quillian, JJ., concur.

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

Felton, Chief Judge.

1. The determination of the weight and credibility of the evidence, including the testimony of the prosecuting witness, was within the province of the jury. Wheeler v. State, 112 Ga. 43 (37 SE 126); Harper v. State, 201 Ga. 10 (39 SE2d 45); Reece v. State, 208 Ga. 165 (66 SE2d 133); Whitus v. State, 222 Ga. 103 (149 SE2d 130). The general grounds of the motion for new trial are without merit.

2. The right to have representation by counsel at an identification line-up, as provided in United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218 (87 SC 1926, 18 LE2d 1149) applies to line-ups held after June 12, 1967, hence not to the one in the instant case, which was held on June 10, 1967. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293 (87 SC 1967, 18 LE2d 1199); People v. Feggans, 67 AC 447, 62 Cal. Rptr. 419 (432 P2d 21); Crume v. Beto, 383 F2d 36, 38. The special ground of the motion for new trial as amended is without merit.

The court did not err in rendering judgment on the verdict and in overruling the motion for new trial as amended.

Judgment affirmed.

Pannell and Quillian, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 S.E.2d 926, 119 Ga. App. 29, 1969 Ga. App. LEXIS 962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-state-gactapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack