Freeman v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Freeman v. State

109 S.E. 918, 27 Ga. App. 780, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 421

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 13, 1921

Docket12978

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 109 S.E. 918 (Freeman 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

Freeman v. State, 109 S.E. 918, 27 Ga. App. 780, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 421 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Upon the trial a witness for the State, while being questioned by the solicitor-general, made a statement which reflected upon the character of one of the defendants, and which was not responsive to the question propounded. No objection was made to the admission of this statement, nor was any motion subsequently made to rule it out, but counsel for the accused moved for a mistrial of the case because of such statement. The court declined to grant a mistrial, saying, “ if you could get a mistrial every time a witness says something he oughtn’t to say, you would never get a trial.” The judge did, however, on his own motion, rule out the statement of the witness, and specifically instructed the jury not to consider it in any way in passing upon the case. In view of the above-recited facts, this court cannot hold as a matter of law that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial. None of the cases cited by counsel for the movants is similar to this case.

2. In view of the particular facts of the case and the charge of the court as a whole, the excerpts complained of are not error for any reason assigned.

3. None of the other special grounds of the motion for a new trial shows reversible error.

4. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the overruling of the motion for a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. Upon the trial a witness for the State, while being questioned by the solicitor-general, made a statement which reflected upon the character of one of the defendants, and which was not responsive to the question propounded. No objection was made to the admission of this statement, nor was any motion subsequently made to rule it out, but counsel for the accused moved for a mistrial of the case because of such statement. The court declined to grant a mistrial, saying, “ if you could get a mistrial every time a witness says something he oughtn’t to say, you would never get a trial.” The judge did, however, on his own motion, rule out the statement of the witness, and specifically instructed the jury not to consider it in any way in passing upon the case. In view of the above-recited facts, this court cannot hold as a matter of law that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial. None of the cases cited by counsel for the movants is similar to this case.

2. In view of the particular facts of the case and the charge of the court as a whole, the excerpts complained of are not error for any reason assigned.

3. None of the other special grounds of the motion for a new trial shows reversible error.

4. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the overruling of the motion for a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 S.E. 918, 27 Ga. App. 780, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freeman-v-state-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack