Higdon v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Higdon v. State

167 S.E. 782, 46 Ga. App. 346, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 59

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 3, 1933

Docket22863

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 167 S.E. 782 (Higdon 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

Higdon v. State, 167 S.E. 782, 46 Ga. App. 346, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 59 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Guerry, J.

1. It was not error for the court to allow witnesses who had remained in the court-room to testify, although the rule for the sequestration of witnesses had been invoked. Such a witness who is in wilful disobedience of the order of the court may be attached for contempt, but he is not disqualified as a witness. “A party’s right to have the testimony of any witness, when material to the assertion of his rights, is, under the provisions of Code § 5858, unabridged, except by the exceptions therein specified, and is unaffected by § 1043 of the Penal Code which relates to the sequestration of witnesses.” Thomas v. State, 7 Ga. App. 615 (67 S. E. 707); May v. State, 90 Ga. 793 (17 S. E. 108) McWhorter v. State, 118 Ga. 55 (44 S. E. 873); Phillips v. State, 121 Ga. 358 (49 S. E. 290) ; Wallace v. Mize, 153 Ga. 374 (112 S. E. 724) ; Pope v. State, 42 Ga. App. 680 (157 S. E. 211).

2. The evidence supports the verdict, and there was no error in denying the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., amd MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Guerry, J.

1. It was not error for the court to allow witnesses who had remained in the court-room to testify, although the rule for the sequestration of witnesses had been invoked. Such a witness who is in wilful disobedience of the order of the court may be attached for contempt, but he is not disqualified as a witness. “A party’s right to have the testimony of any witness, when material to the assertion of his rights, is, under the provisions of Code § 5858, unabridged, except by the exceptions therein specified, and is unaffected by § 1043 of the Penal Code which relates to the sequestration of witnesses.” Thomas v. State, 7 Ga. App. 615 (67 S. E. 707); May v. State, 90 Ga. 793 (17 S. E. 108) McWhorter v. State, 118 Ga. 55 (44 S. E. 873); Phillips v. State, 121 Ga. 358 (49 S. E. 290) ; Wallace v. Mize, 153 Ga. 374 (112 S. E. 724) ; Pope v. State, 42 Ga. App. 680 (157 S. E. 211).

2. The evidence supports the verdict, and there was no error in denying the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., amd MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 S.E. 782, 46 Ga. App. 346, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/higdon-v-state-gactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack