Graham v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Graham v. State

148 S.E. 618, 39 Ga. App. 828, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 578

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 11, 1929

Docket19726

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 148 S.E. 618 (Graham 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

Graham v. State, 148 S.E. 618, 39 Ga. App. 828, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 578 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Under tlie facts of the case the refusal of the court to declare a mistrial (the motion being based upon the statement of counsel for the State, in the concluding argument, that if the jury, with the evidence before them, did not convict, they should not be allowed to sit on the jury) is not cause for a new trial. When the judge denied the motion he instructed the jury “not to consider any statement made by counsel but to look to the evidence and base their verdict upon the evidence from the witness or witnesses produced from the stand and from the charge of the court.” Furthermore, the verdict was demanded by the evidence adduced by the State (the defendant made a statement but introduced no evidence). See, in this connection, Burke v. State, 27 Ga. App. 314 (3) (108 S. E. 119).

2. The refusal to grant a new trial was not error for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur, If. L. Williams, for plaintiff in error. Wade II. Watson, solicitor, contra.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. Under tlie facts of the case the refusal of the court to declare a mistrial (the motion being based upon the statement of counsel for the State, in the concluding argument, that if the jury, with the evidence before them, did not convict, they should not be allowed to sit on the jury) is not cause for a new trial. When the judge denied the motion he instructed the jury “not to consider any statement made by counsel but to look to the evidence and base their verdict upon the evidence from the witness or witnesses produced from the stand and from the charge of the court.” Furthermore, the verdict was demanded by the evidence adduced by the State (the defendant made a statement but introduced no evidence). See, in this connection, Burke v. State, 27 Ga. App. 314 (3) (108 S. E. 119).

2. The refusal to grant a new trial was not error for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur, If. L. Williams, for plaintiff in error. Wade II. Watson, solicitor, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 S.E. 618, 39 Ga. App. 828, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-state-gactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack