Huckaby v. State

99 S.E. 633, 23 Ga. App. 812, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 374
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided June 13, 1919·No. 10495·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

1. Under repeated.rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, where a portion of an excerpt from the charge of the court, complained of, is not erroneous, and the exception is to the entire excerpt (the erroneous portion not being pointed out), the exception is too broad and will not be considered by the reviewing court. In this case the excerpt complained of dealt with the subjects of admissions and confessions, and exception was taken to the entire excerpt. The. portion of the charge on admissions was authorized by the facts of the ease and was not error for any reason assigned. Under the foregoing ruling the exception to the entire excerpt' was too broad and. will not be considered.

2. The other special grounds of the motion for a new trial are without merit:

3. The evidence as to the venue of the crime, while circumstantial and not altogether satisfactory, authorized a finding in favor' of the State upon this issue.

4. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and, having been approved by the trial judge, this court is without authority to interfere.

' Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.

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

Huckaby v. State, 99 S.E. 633, 23 Ga. App. 812, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 374 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

99 S.E. 633 (Huckaby v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Farrar v. Glynn-Brunswick Memorial Hospital Authority
146 S.E.2d 111 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Merritt v. State
137 S.E.2d 917 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)
Stanley v. Squadrito
131 S.E.2d 227 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1963)
Bennett v. George
125 S.E.2d 122 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1962)
HARROLD BROTHERS, INC. v. Peterman
123 S.E.2d 30 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1961)