Handy v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Handy v. State

85 S.E. 351, 16 Ga. App. 341, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 616

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 17, 1915

Docket5809

StatusPublished

This text of 85 S.E. 351 (Handy 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

Handy v. State, 85 S.E. 351, 16 Ga. App. 341, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 616 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

1. The instructions given the jury are not subject to exception upon the ground that they “did not set forth the contention or defense of the defendant,” or because they were “not adjusted to the facts of the case,” and “did not apply the law to the facts of the case, or the facts of the case to the law.” A written request, made at the proper time, might have required fuller instructions, but, in the absence of such a request, the charge was sufficiently full, and it was fair and adjusted to the issues and evidence.

2. The law of Georgia does not entitle a defendant in a criminal case to make more than one statement at his trial, as a matter of right. Permission to make an additional statement is a matter addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, and, unless there is a manifest abuse of this discretionary power, this court will not interfere therewith. There was no such abuse in the present case.

3. The evidence supports the verdict, and we And no error in the judgment refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, J., not presiding.

Indictment for robbery; from Chatham superior court' — Judge Charlton. May 4, 1914.

. Shelby Myrich, for plaintiff in error. Walter G. Hartridge, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Russell, C. J.

1. The instructions given the jury are not subject to exception upon the ground that they “did not set forth the contention or defense of the defendant,” or because they were “not adjusted to the facts of the case,” and “did not apply the law to the facts of the case, or the facts of the case to the law.” A written request, made at the proper time, might have required fuller instructions, but, in the absence of such a request, the charge was sufficiently full, and it was fair and adjusted to the issues and evidence.

2. The law of Georgia does not entitle a defendant in a criminal case to make more than one statement at his trial, as a matter of right. Permission to make an additional statement is a matter addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, and, unless there is a manifest abuse of this discretionary power, this court will not interfere therewith. There was no such abuse in the present case.

3. The evidence supports the verdict, and we And no error in the judgment refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, J., not presiding.

Indictment for robbery; from Chatham superior court' — Judge Charlton. May 4, 1914.

. Shelby Myrich, for plaintiff in error. Walter G. Hartridge, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 S.E. 351, 16 Ga. App. 341, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/handy-v-state-gactapp-1915.