Hart v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hart v. State

110 S.E. 745, 28 Ga. App. 258, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 437

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 2, 1922

Docket13150

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 110 S.E. 745 (Hart 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

Hart v. State, 110 S.E. 745, 28 Ga. App. 258, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 437 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Upon the trial of a criminal case it is not error for the judge to omit to charge upon a theory of defense raised solely by the defendant’s statement, in the absence of a timely and appropriate written request; but where the judge on his own motion undertakes so to charge, his instructions must fully and correctly cover that theory. Reeves v. State, 114 Ga. 86 (39 S. E. 918); Richards v. State, 114 Ga. 834 (40 S. E. 1001); Smith v. State, 117 Ga. 259, 260 (43 S. E. 703); Ragland v. State, 111 Ga. 211 (36 S. E. 682); Phillips v. State, 11 Ga. App. 262 (75 S. E. 14).

2. Under the foregoing ruling and the facts of the instant case, the judge of the superior court erred in disallowing the traverse filed to the answer of the trial judge.

3. The error in disallowing the traverse rendered the further proceedings in the case nugatory.

Judgment reversed.

Bloodworth, J., concurs; Luke, J., absent.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. Upon the trial of a criminal case it is not error for the judge to omit to charge upon a theory of defense raised solely by the defendant’s statement, in the absence of a timely and appropriate written request; but where the judge on his own motion undertakes so to charge, his instructions must fully and correctly cover that theory. Reeves v. State, 114 Ga. 86 (39 S. E. 918); Richards v. State, 114 Ga. 834 (40 S. E. 1001); Smith v. State, 117 Ga. 259, 260 (43 S. E. 703); Ragland v. State, 111 Ga. 211 (36 S. E. 682); Phillips v. State, 11 Ga. App. 262 (75 S. E. 14).

2. Under the foregoing ruling and the facts of the instant case, the judge of the superior court erred in disallowing the traverse filed to the answer of the trial judge.

3. The error in disallowing the traverse rendered the further proceedings in the case nugatory.

Judgment reversed.

Bloodworth, J., concurs; Luke, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 S.E. 745, 28 Ga. App. 258, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-v-state-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack