Gardner v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Gardner v. State

87 S.E. 150, 17 Ga. App. 410, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 462

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 9, 1915

Docket6371

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 87 S.E. 150 (Gardner 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

Gardner v. State, 87 S.E. 150, 17 Ga. App. 410, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 462 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

1. “It is well settled that the failure of the trial judge to charge the jury in a criminal case to the effect that the defendant entered upon his trial with the presumption of innocence in his favor, and that this presumption remains with him until overcome by proof satisfying the jury of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, is reversible error.” Thurman v. State, 14 Ga. App. 543 (6) (81 S. E. 796), citing Coffin v. U. S., 156 U. S. 432 (15 Sup. Ct. 394, 39 L. ed. 481); Reddick v. State, 11 Ga. App. 150 (74 S. E. 901); Bulls v. State, 13 Ga. App. 274 (79 S. E. 87).

2. A charge to the jury, that the defendant goes on trial with the presumption of innocence in his favor, and that presumption remains with him throughout the trial of the ease, in the nature of evidence in his behalf, until overcome and rebutted by proof of his guilt beyond “a reasonable doubt of the law,” did not state the doctrine of law as to the presumption of innocence as clearly and correctly as the defendant was entitled to have it presented, and, in the absence of other instructions on the law as to reasonable doubt of guilt, may have been confusing to the jury, and thus failed to safeguard the interests of the defendant to the degree that the law demands. Thurman v. State, supra. See also Norman v. State, 10 Ga. App. 802 (74 S. E. 428).

3. The court erred in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, J., dissents.-

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

Russell, C. J.

1. “It is well settled that the failure of the trial judge to charge the jury in a criminal case to the effect that the defendant entered upon his trial with the presumption of innocence in his favor, and that this presumption remains with him until overcome by proof satisfying the jury of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, is reversible error.” Thurman v. State, 14 Ga. App. 543 (6) (81 S. E. 796), citing Coffin v. U. S., 156 U. S. 432 (15 Sup. Ct. 394, 39 L. ed. 481); Reddick v. State, 11 Ga. App. 150 (74 S. E. 901); Bulls v. State, 13 Ga. App. 274 (79 S. E. 87).

2. A charge to the jury, that the defendant goes on trial with the presumption of innocence in his favor, and that presumption remains with him throughout the trial of the ease, in the nature of evidence in his behalf, until overcome and rebutted by proof of his guilt beyond “a reasonable doubt of the law,” did not state the doctrine of law as to the presumption of innocence as clearly and correctly as the defendant was entitled to have it presented, and, in the absence of other instructions on the law as to reasonable doubt of guilt, may have been confusing to the jury, and thus failed to safeguard the interests of the defendant to the degree that the law demands. Thurman v. State, supra. See also Norman v. State, 10 Ga. App. 802 (74 S. E. 428).

3. The court erred in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, J., dissents.-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.E. 150, 17 Ga. App. 410, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-v-state-gactapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack