Hinson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hinson v. State

144 S.E. 127, 38 Ga. App. 436, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 273

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 31, 1928

Docket19035

StatusPublished

This text of 144 S.E. 127 (Hinson 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

Hinson v. State, 144 S.E. 127, 38 Ga. App. 436, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 273 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The amendment to the motion for a new trial was based upon alleged bias and prejudice of one of the jurors. The affidavit of the witness attacking the juror’s competency was met by the State introducing an affidavit from the juror in question, in which he denied the charges made against him. In passing upon the issue thus raised the trial judge was the trior, and his decision can not be controlled unless a manifest abuse of his discretion appears. No such abuse is shown.

2. The evidence, while not entirely convincing to this court as to the defendant’s guilt, was sufficient to authorize the verdict; and the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial court, this court is without authority to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, J.J., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The amendment to the motion for a new trial was based upon alleged bias and prejudice of one of the jurors. The affidavit of the witness attacking the juror’s competency was met by the State introducing an affidavit from the juror in question, in which he denied the charges made against him. In passing upon the issue thus raised the trial judge was the trior, and his decision can not be controlled unless a manifest abuse of his discretion appears. No such abuse is shown.

2. The evidence, while not entirely convincing to this court as to the defendant’s guilt, was sufficient to authorize the verdict; and the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial court, this court is without authority to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, J.J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 S.E. 127, 38 Ga. App. 436, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinson-v-state-gactapp-1928.