Getters v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Getters v. State

134 S.E. 121, 35 Ga. App. 497, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 942

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 15, 1926

Docket17315

StatusPublished

This text of 134 S.E. 121 (Getters 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

Getters v. State, 134 S.E. 121, 35 Ga. App. 497, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 942 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. The defendant was convicted of assault with intent to murder. A careful reading of the charge of the court discloses that it -is not subject to the attack made upon it in the motion for a new trial. Under the facts of this case the court was not bound, in the absence of a proper request, to charge the law of confessions. Sellers v. State, 99 Ga. 212 (25 S. E. 178). Neither did the court err in failing to charge the law relative to impeachment by contradictory statements. Whether a witness “be impeached or not is for the jury to say; and though others contradict him, the jury may believe him in preference to them.” Williams v. State, 69 Ga. 14 (28).

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, no error of law is shown, and the judgment of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial is

Affirmed.

Broyles-, O. J., and Bloodworfh, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

1. The defendant was convicted of assault with intent to murder. A careful reading of the charge of the court discloses that it -is not subject to the attack made upon it in the motion for a new trial. Under the facts of this case the court was not bound, in the absence of a proper request, to charge the law of confessions. Sellers v. State, 99 Ga. 212 (25 S. E. 178). Neither did the court err in failing to charge the law relative to impeachment by contradictory statements. Whether a witness “be impeached or not is for the jury to say; and though others contradict him, the jury may believe him in preference to them.” Williams v. State, 69 Ga. 14 (28).

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, no error of law is shown, and the judgment of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial is

Affirmed.

Broyles-, O. J., and Bloodworfh, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 S.E. 121, 35 Ga. App. 497, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/getters-v-state-gactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack