Hice v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hice v. State

163 S.E.2d 854, 118 Ga. App. 369, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 939

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 19, 1968

Docket43789

StatusPublished

This text of 163 S.E.2d 854 (Hice 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

Hice v. State, 163 S.E.2d 854, 118 Ga. App. 369, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 939 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Eberhardt, Judge.

Defendant was convicted of driving a motor vehicle on the highways of this State in excess of the lawful speed limit. He filed a motion for new trial, amended it, and it was overruled. Thereafter he appealed from the judgment of conviction on the verdict, raising only the question of whether there was sufficient evidence as to defendant’s identity (argued under the general grounds), and whether the one special ground of the motion concerning the admission of certain evidence had been properly overruled. Held:

Under the ruling in Hill v. Willis, 224 Ga. 263, 268 (4) (161 SE2d 281), all matters involved in the motion for new trial —whether general or special grounds — have become the law of the case, the judgment overruling it being unappealed from. While the overruling of the motion for new trial is enumerated as error, so that we must consider it, yet, as the Supreme Court held, this enumeration can not, in this situation, show reversible error. Bryan v. State, 224 Ga. 389 (1) (162 SE2d 349); Crowley v. State, 118 Ga. App. 7 (162 SE2d 299). Consequently, the judgment must be

Affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Whitman, J., concur.

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

Eberhardt, Judge.

Defendant was convicted of driving a motor vehicle on the highways of this State in excess of the lawful speed limit. He filed a motion for new trial, amended it, and it was overruled. Thereafter he appealed from the judgment of conviction on the verdict, raising only the question of whether there was sufficient evidence as to defendant’s identity (argued under the general grounds), and whether the one special ground of the motion concerning the admission of certain evidence had been properly overruled. Held:

Under the ruling in Hill v. Willis, 224 Ga. 263, 268 (4) (161 SE2d 281), all matters involved in the motion for new trial —whether general or special grounds — have become the law of the case, the judgment overruling it being unappealed from. While the overruling of the motion for new trial is enumerated as error, so that we must consider it, yet, as the Supreme Court held, this enumeration can not, in this situation, show reversible error. Bryan v. State, 224 Ga. 389 (1) (162 SE2d 349); Crowley v. State, 118 Ga. App. 7 (162 SE2d 299). Consequently, the judgment must be

Affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Whitman, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 S.E.2d 854, 118 Ga. App. 369, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hice-v-state-gactapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack