Hubbard v. State

33 S.E. 814, 108 Ga. 786, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 412
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided July 18, 1899·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Simmons, C. J.

Where in a criminal case the vital issue of fact is whether or not the alleged crime was committed within the period of the statute of limitations, and the judge, while a witness for the State is on the stand, carries him through a rigid examination upon this point, eliciting from the witness answers which fail to establish the time when the crime was committed, the witness giving answers to the effect that it may or may not have been perpetrated within the period of the statute of limitations, it is error for the judge, when the witness has finally brought the time within the statute, to remark within the hearing of the jury, “That is sufficient.” This, under the circumstances of the case, might be fairlj' construed as such an expression of opinion on the evidence as, under section 1032 of the Penal Code, imperatively requires the grant of a new trial. Judgment reversed,.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Hubbard v. State, 33 S.E. 814, 108 Ga. 786, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 412 (Ga. 1899).

33 S.E. 814 (Hubbard v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Patterson v. State
226 S.E.2d 115 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Workman v. State
224 S.E.2d 757 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Benefield v. Benefield
160 S.E.2d 895 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1968)
Thompson v. State
47 S.E.2d 54 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1948)
Coon v. State
40 Ga. App. 125 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1929)
Crumady v. State
148 S.E. 157 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1929)
Reed v. State
135 S.E. 748 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1926)
Jenkins v. State
51 S.E. 598 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)
Grant v. State
50 S.E. 946 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)
Lehman v. District of Columbia
19 App. D.C. 217 (D.C. Circuit, 1902)