Hill v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hill v. State

130 S.E. 217, 34 Ga. App. 514, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 364

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 10, 1925

Docket16732

StatusPublished

This text of 130 S.E. 217 (Hill 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

Hill v. State, 130 S.E. 217, 34 Ga. App. 514, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 364 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

Upon the trial of this case and while the solicitor-general

was making the concluding argument to the jury he used the following words: “I had no idea that they would put the character of such a man as Luther Hill [the accused] in evidence. If I had, I would have had twenty men here to prove his character by.” Counsel for the defendant promptly moved for a mistrial, on the grounds that the statement was unauthorized by the evidence and was highly prejudicial to the accused. The court denied the motion, and failed to rebuke the solicitor-general or to instruct the jury not to consider the statement, and the statement was not withdrawn by the solicitor-general. Held: The refusal to declare a mistrial was reversible error, and the court therefore erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

Upon the trial of this case and while the solicitor-general

was making the concluding argument to the jury he used the following words: “I had no idea that they would put the character of such a man as Luther Hill [the accused] in evidence. If I had, I would have had twenty men here to prove his character by.” Counsel for the defendant promptly moved for a mistrial, on the grounds that the statement was unauthorized by the evidence and was highly prejudicial to the accused. The court denied the motion, and failed to rebuke the solicitor-general or to instruct the jury not to consider the statement, and the statement was not withdrawn by the solicitor-general. Held: The refusal to declare a mistrial was reversible error, and the court therefore erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 S.E. 217, 34 Ga. App. 514, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-state-gactapp-1925.