Gardner v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Gardner v. State

130 S.E. 215, 34 Ga. App. 512, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 362

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 10, 1925

Docket16710

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 130 S.E. 215 (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, 130 S.E. 215, 34 Ga. App. 512, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 362 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, 0. J.

1. Where, by oversight, inadvertence, or otherwise, the defendant is put on trial upon an indictment which charges that he assaulted one Oharlie Johnson, with the intent to murder him, and during the trial it develops that the person so assaulted was Robert Johnson, and where, on motion of counsel for the defendant, a verdict is directed for the defendant, such acquittal can not be pleaded in defense to another indictment, charging the same defendant with assaulting with intent to kill one Robert Johnson. This is true although it was the intention in the first instance to indiet and prosecute [513]*513the defendant for assaulting Robert Johnson, and both indictments related to the same transaction. Moody v. State, 1 Ga. App. 772 (1), 774 (58 S. E. 262); Gully v. State, 116 Ga. 527 (42 S. E. 790), and citations.

Decided November 10, 1925. Charles F. Wells, John F. Echols, for plaintiff in error. John A. Boylcin, solicitor-general, Ralph Ii. Pharr, contra.

2. The special grounds of the motion for a new trial, complaining of the admission of certain evidence, show no reversible error.

3. The general grounds of the motion for a new trial are not argued or referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, and there- . fore are treated as abandoned.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, 0. J.

1. Where, by oversight, inadvertence, or otherwise, the defendant is put on trial upon an indictment which charges that he assaulted one Oharlie Johnson, with the intent to murder him, and during the trial it develops that the person so assaulted was Robert Johnson, and where, on motion of counsel for the defendant, a verdict is directed for the defendant, such acquittal can not be pleaded in defense to another indictment, charging the same defendant with assaulting with intent to kill one Robert Johnson. This is true although it was the intention in the first instance to indiet and prosecute [513]*513the defendant for assaulting Robert Johnson, and both indictments related to the same transaction. Moody v. State, 1 Ga. App. 772 (1), 774 (58 S. E. 262); Gully v. State, 116 Ga. 527 (42 S. E. 790), and citations.

Decided November 10, 1925. Charles F. Wells, John F. Echols, for plaintiff in error. John A. Boylcin, solicitor-general, Ralph Ii. Pharr, contra.

2. The special grounds of the motion for a new trial, complaining of the admission of certain evidence, show no reversible error.

3. The general grounds of the motion for a new trial are not argued or referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, and there- . fore are treated as abandoned.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 S.E. 215, 34 Ga. App. 512, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-v-state-gactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack