Hammond v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hammond v. State

58 S.E. 509, 2 Ga. App. 384, 1907 Ga. App. LEXIS 381

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 25, 1907

Docket507

StatusPublished

This text of 58 S.E. 509 (Hammond 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

Hammond v. State, 58 S.E. 509, 2 Ga. App. 384, 1907 Ga. App. LEXIS 381 (Ga. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

The trial judge charged, “Moral and reasonable certainty is all that can be expected in legal investigation. In all civil cases the preponderance of testimony is considered sufficient to produce mental conviction. In criminal cases a greater strength of mental conviction is held necessary to justify a verdict of guilty,”' Exception is taken to so much of this instruction as states that “in. all civil cases the preponderance of testimony is considered sufficient to produce mental conviction,” on the ground of its irrele[385]*385vancy to the issue. While in criminal trials it is not appropriate that the judge should ordinarily refer to the rule of proof applicable in civil trials, yet, taken in connection with the context and with the fact that the judge fully instructed the jury as to the benefit of reasonable doubt to which the defendant was entitled and as to the presumption of innocence in his favor, it is clear that no injury .resulted to him. Jackson v. State, 125 Ga. 102 (3), 53 S. E. 607.

Further isolated excerpts from the charge are excepted to. When viewed in light of the entire charge they present no ground of reversible error. Judgment affirmed.

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

Powell, J.

The trial judge charged, “Moral and reasonable certainty is all that can be expected in legal investigation. In all civil cases the preponderance of testimony is considered sufficient to produce mental conviction. In criminal cases a greater strength of mental conviction is held necessary to justify a verdict of guilty,”' Exception is taken to so much of this instruction as states that “in. all civil cases the preponderance of testimony is considered sufficient to produce mental conviction,” on the ground of its irrele[385]*385vancy to the issue. While in criminal trials it is not appropriate that the judge should ordinarily refer to the rule of proof applicable in civil trials, yet, taken in connection with the context and with the fact that the judge fully instructed the jury as to the benefit of reasonable doubt to which the defendant was entitled and as to the presumption of innocence in his favor, it is clear that no injury .resulted to him. Jackson v. State, 125 Ga. 102 (3), 53 S. E. 607.

Further isolated excerpts from the charge are excepted to. When viewed in light of the entire charge they present no ground of reversible error. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 S.E. 509, 2 Ga. App. 384, 1907 Ga. App. LEXIS 381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammond-v-state-gactapp-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack