Garvin v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Garvin v. State

163 S.E. 517, 44 Ga. App. 755, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 482

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 17, 1932

Docket21837

StatusPublished

This text of 163 S.E. 517 (Garvin 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

Garvin v. State, 163 S.E. 517, 44 Ga. App. 755, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 482 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

J. G. Garvin, Aubrey Sikes, T. L. Martin, and others were indicted for murdering Dennis Hubert by shooting him with a pistol. Garvin was tried separately and convicted of voluntary manslaughter. His exception is to the judgment overruling his motion for a new trial.

While the brief of evidence is not identical with that in the case of Sikes y. State, ante, 7-16, it does involve precisely the same transaction and the same contention, so far as the general grounds of the motion for a new trial are concerned. It might also be observed that this court affirmed the judgment in the kindred case of Martin v. State, 42 Ga. App. 591 (157 S. E. 113). In these circumstances, without burdening the printed page with a statement of the evidence 'in the case, we shall merely state that the general grounds of the motion for a new trial were properly overruled. We are also satisfied that the only special ground shows no reason for reversing the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

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

Luke, J.

J. G. Garvin, Aubrey Sikes, T. L. Martin, and others were indicted for murdering Dennis Hubert by shooting him with a pistol. Garvin was tried separately and convicted of voluntary manslaughter. His exception is to the judgment overruling his motion for a new trial.

While the brief of evidence is not identical with that in the case of Sikes y. State, ante, 7-16, it does involve precisely the same transaction and the same contention, so far as the general grounds of the motion for a new trial are concerned. It might also be observed that this court affirmed the judgment in the kindred case of Martin v. State, 42 Ga. App. 591 (157 S. E. 113). In these circumstances, without burdening the printed page with a statement of the evidence 'in the case, we shall merely state that the general grounds of the motion for a new trial were properly overruled. We are also satisfied that the only special ground shows no reason for reversing the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 S.E. 517, 44 Ga. App. 755, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garvin-v-state-gactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack