Hunt v. State

49 Ga. 255
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedOctober 15, 1872
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 49 Ga. 255 (Hunt v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hunt v. State, 49 Ga. 255 (Ga. 1872).

Opinion

Warner, Chief Justice.

The defendant was indicted for the offense of an assault, with intent to murder. On the trial, the jury found him guilty of the lesser offense of stabbing. A motion was made for a new trial, on the several grounds set forth in the record, which was overruled, and the defendant excepted. The principal ground of error insisted on before this Court was, that the Court below'limited the defendant’s counsel to thirty minutes in his argument before the jury, over his protest that he could not do justice to his client’s case within the limited time prescribed by the Court. It appears from the certificate of the presiding Judge that he allowed the defendant’s counsel forty minutes t© address the jury — that is to say, he allowed him to go ten minutes over the time prescribed at the commencement of the argument.

1. In view of the provisions of the Constitution, which declares that every person charged with an offense against the laws shall have the privilege and benefit of counsel, the Court below committed a grave error in limiting the argument of counsel, as disclosed by (the record, which this Court cannot sanction.

2. If the evidence contained in the record had been so decidedly strong as to have requwed ¡the verdict rendered by the jury, Ave might not have interfered with it for the error complained of, but the evidence is •oonüeting as to whether the .stabbing was done in self-defense:; and inasmuch as the defendant Avas prevented by the Count from having the privilege and benefit of counsel in his defense., as contemplated by the Constitution, we reverse the judgment of the Court below and order a new trial.

Let the judgment of tike Court beloAV be reversed.

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

Related

Hand v. State
77 S.E.2d 746 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
May v. State
103 So. 115 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1925)
State v. Mayo
85 P. 251 (Washington Supreme Court, 1906)
Reagan v. St. Louis Transit Co.
79 S.W. 435 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1904)
Yeldell v. State
100 Ala. 26 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1893)
Jones v. Commonwealth
12 S.E. 226 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1890)
Williams v. Commonwealth
82 Ky. 640 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1885)
Wingo v. State
62 Miss. 311 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1884)
The People v. . Kelly
94 N.Y. 526 (New York Court of Appeals, 1884)
Kizer v. State
80 Tenn. 564 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1883)
Early & Lane v. Oliver & Norton
63 Ga. 11 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1879)
Williams v. State
60 Ga. 367 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1878)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 Ga. 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-state-ga-1872.