Hammond v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hammond v. State

179 S.E. 841, 51 Ga. App. 225, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 636

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 3, 1935

Docket24706

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 179 S.E. 841 (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, 179 S.E. 841, 51 Ga. App. 225, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 636 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

G-umKRY, J.

The defendant was indicted for the possession of intoxicating liquor. The solicitor in liis argument to the jury said: “there was [is?] bootlegging all over the country and the defendant ought to be convicted.” The counsel for defendant thereupon moved the court for the grant of a mistrial for this prejudicial remark and the motion was overruled. The court did not rebuke counsel or tell the jury to disregard this statement. Held: While counsel may “under the fullest inspiration of excited genius give vent to their glowing conceptions, in thoughts that breathe and words that burn” (Berry v. State, 10 Ga. 511), yet it is important that the verdict of a jury should be based only on legal evidence properly submitted to them; and remarks of counsel, not in evidence nor drawn from evidence, irrelevant and immaterial-to the vital issue, and used ostensibly only for the purpose of prejudicing the minds of the jury against the defendant, where a motion for mistrial is made, and there is no rebuke of counsel by the court and no charge to the jury to disregard such statement, require the grant of a new trial. The fact that bootlegging was occurring all over the country, if such is a fact, could have no possible bearing upon the question of whether the defendant was in possession of intoxicating liquors. We therefore think a new trial should be granted. See Washington v. State, 87 Ga. 12 (13 S. E. 131); Fair v. State, 168 Ga. 409 (148 S. E. 144); Ivey v. State, 113 Ga. 1062 (39 S. E. 423, 54 L. R. A. 959); Hudson v. State, 101 Ga. 520 (28 S. E. 1010); Bryan v. State, 36 Ga. App. 656 (137 S. E. 797).

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur. Price Edwards, for plaintiff in error. Hal C. Hutchens, solicitor-general, S. W. Ragsdale, contra.

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

G-umKRY, J.

The defendant was indicted for the possession of intoxicating liquor. The solicitor in liis argument to the jury said: “there was [is?] bootlegging all over the country and the defendant ought to be convicted.” The counsel for defendant thereupon moved the court for the grant of a mistrial for this prejudicial remark and the motion was overruled. The court did not rebuke counsel or tell the jury to disregard this statement. Held: While counsel may “under the fullest inspiration of excited genius give vent to their glowing conceptions, in thoughts that breathe and words that burn” (Berry v. State, 10 Ga. 511), yet it is important that the verdict of a jury should be based only on legal evidence properly submitted to them; and remarks of counsel, not in evidence nor drawn from evidence, irrelevant and immaterial-to the vital issue, and used ostensibly only for the purpose of prejudicing the minds of the jury against the defendant, where a motion for mistrial is made, and there is no rebuke of counsel by the court and no charge to the jury to disregard such statement, require the grant of a new trial. The fact that bootlegging was occurring all over the country, if such is a fact, could have no possible bearing upon the question of whether the defendant was in possession of intoxicating liquors. We therefore think a new trial should be granted. See Washington v. State, 87 Ga. 12 (13 S. E. 131); Fair v. State, 168 Ga. 409 (148 S. E. 144); Ivey v. State, 113 Ga. 1062 (39 S. E. 423, 54 L. R. A. 959); Hudson v. State, 101 Ga. 520 (28 S. E. 1010); Bryan v. State, 36 Ga. App. 656 (137 S. E. 797).

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur. Price Edwards, for plaintiff in error. Hal C. Hutchens, solicitor-general, S. W. Ragsdale, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.E. 841, 51 Ga. App. 225, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammond-v-state-gactapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack