Fulford v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Fulford v. State

99 S.E. 303, 149 Ga. 162, 1919 Ga. LEXIS 172

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 16, 1919

DocketNo. 1150

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 99 S.E. 303 (Fulford v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fulford v. State, 99 S.E. 303, 149 Ga. 162, 1919 Ga. LEXIS 172 (Ga. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. “While it is the duty of the court, whether requested or not, to charge the jury the appropriate law on the substantial issues of a case, yet a defendant who submits a written request for a charge on a material issue, which charge as requested is given to the jury, can not complain that the proposition therein embraced should have been elaborated by the court.” Walker v. State, 124 Ga. 97 (4), 98 (52 S. E. 319). Applying this principle, the charge of the court on the subject of alibi, upon which error was assigned, does not require the grant of a new trial.

2. The evidence authorized the jury to find that the sole eye-witness to the murder was not an accomplice, and was sufficient to support the verdict finding the defendants guilty.

3. The alleged newly discovered evidence was cumulative and impeaching in character, and it does not appear that a different result would or ought to be reached on another trial.

4. None of the grounds of the motion for new trial show cause for reversal.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.-

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

Atkinson, J.

1. “While it is the duty of the court, whether requested or not, to charge the jury the appropriate law on the substantial issues of a case, yet a defendant who submits a written request for a charge on a material issue, which charge as requested is given to the jury, can not complain that the proposition therein embraced should have been elaborated by the court.” Walker v. State, 124 Ga. 97 (4), 98 (52 S. E. 319). Applying this principle, the charge of the court on the subject of alibi, upon which error was assigned, does not require the grant of a new trial.

2. The evidence authorized the jury to find that the sole eye-witness to the murder was not an accomplice, and was sufficient to support the verdict finding the defendants guilty.

3. The alleged newly discovered evidence was cumulative and impeaching in character, and it does not appear that a different result would or ought to be reached on another trial.

4. None of the grounds of the motion for new trial show cause for reversal.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 S.E. 303, 149 Ga. 162, 1919 Ga. LEXIS 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fulford-v-state-ga-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack