Hatfield v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hatfield v. State

121 S.E. 129, 31 Ga. App. 554, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 47

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 16, 1924

Docket15125

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 121 S.E. 129 (Hatfield 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

Hatfield v. State, 121 S.E. 129, 31 Ga. App. 554, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 47 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodwoktii, J.

1. The 4th ground of the motion for a new trial is based upon the refusal of the judge to continue the case, and alleges that counsel for plaintiff in error stated to the court that “We make the same motion for a continuance in this ease that we did in the other.” What the other case was or what motion was made to continue it does not appear. It is elementary that every ground of a motion for a new trial must be complete and understandable within itself. This ground is singularly violative of this principle, and presents nothing for the consideration of the court.

2. In the absence of a timely and appropriate written request, the court did not err in failing to charge the jury “in a full and complete manner that the presumption of innocence remains with the defendant throughout the trial and entitles him to an acquittal unless overcome by satisfactory proof.” The charge of the court on the subject of a reasonable doubt sufficiently informed the jury that the burden was on the State. Thomas v. State, 129 Ga. 419 (4) (59 S. E. 246); Finch v. State, 24 Ga. App. 339 (2) (100 S. E. 739). This disposes of the 5th ground of the motion.

3. As there is no special insistence on all the grounds of the motion for a new trial, and the general grounds are not referred to in the brief of the plaintiff in error, they will be treated as abandoned.

Judgment ajfvrmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

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

Bloodwoktii, J.

1. The 4th ground of the motion for a new trial is based upon the refusal of the judge to continue the case, and alleges that counsel for plaintiff in error stated to the court that “We make the same motion for a continuance in this ease that we did in the other.” What the other case was or what motion was made to continue it does not appear. It is elementary that every ground of a motion for a new trial must be complete and understandable within itself. This ground is singularly violative of this principle, and presents nothing for the consideration of the court.

2. In the absence of a timely and appropriate written request, the court did not err in failing to charge the jury “in a full and complete manner that the presumption of innocence remains with the defendant throughout the trial and entitles him to an acquittal unless overcome by satisfactory proof.” The charge of the court on the subject of a reasonable doubt sufficiently informed the jury that the burden was on the State. Thomas v. State, 129 Ga. 419 (4) (59 S. E. 246); Finch v. State, 24 Ga. App. 339 (2) (100 S. E. 739). This disposes of the 5th ground of the motion.

3. As there is no special insistence on all the grounds of the motion for a new trial, and the general grounds are not referred to in the brief of the plaintiff in error, they will be treated as abandoned.

Judgment ajfvrmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 S.E. 129, 31 Ga. App. 554, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hatfield-v-state-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack