James v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

James v. State

37 S.E.2d 548, 73 Ga. App. 567, 1946 Ga. App. LEXIS 361

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 1, 1946

Docket31093.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 37 S.E.2d 548 (James 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

James v. State, 37 S.E.2d 548, 73 Ga. App. 567, 1946 Ga. App. LEXIS 361 (Ga. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntyre, J.

1. There being apparently no effort to brief the evidence in the case, and the paper filed as a brief of the evidence being apparently a full transcript of the stenographic report, containing all the questions to the witnesses and their answers, it is not in accordance with the requirements of § 70-305 of the Code.

2. Such a paper being brought to this court as a brief of evidence will not work a dismissal of the writ of error. But if no question can be determined without a consideration of the evidence, an affirmance will be the result. Crumbley v. Brook, 135 Ga. 723 (70 S. E. 655); Moore v. Walton, 155 Ga. 481 (117 S. E. 743); Augusta-Aiken Ry. &c. Co. v. Andrews, 20 Ga. App. 789 (93 S. E. 543).

3. Special ground 3 of the motion for new trial is as follows: “The court erred in failing to fully give to the jury in charge the law of self-defense.” Even if this exception was not dependent upon a consideration of the evidence, it is insufficient to present any question for the consideration of this record. “It is settled that a charge abstractly correct in itself is not erroneous merely because an additional instruction especially desired to fit the facts of a particular case is not added by the court ex mero motu, in the absence of a timely written request that the instruction be completed as desired.” Brown v. State, 163 Ga. 684 (5) (137 S. E. 31).

4. The other grounds of the motion for new trial can not be determined without a consideration of the evidence, and therefore an affirmance results.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, .0. J., and Gardner, J., conow.

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

MacIntyre, J.

1. There being apparently no effort to brief the evidence in the case, and the paper filed as a brief of the evidence being apparently a full transcript of the stenographic report, containing all the questions to the witnesses and their answers, it is not in accordance with the requirements of § 70-305 of the Code.

2. Such a paper being brought to this court as a brief of evidence will not work a dismissal of the writ of error. But if no question can be determined without a consideration of the evidence, an affirmance will be the result. Crumbley v. Brook, 135 Ga. 723 (70 S. E. 655); Moore v. Walton, 155 Ga. 481 (117 S. E. 743); Augusta-Aiken Ry. &c. Co. v. Andrews, 20 Ga. App. 789 (93 S. E. 543).

3. Special ground 3 of the motion for new trial is as follows: “The court erred in failing to fully give to the jury in charge the law of self-defense.” Even if this exception was not dependent upon a consideration of the evidence, it is insufficient to present any question for the consideration of this record. “It is settled that a charge abstractly correct in itself is not erroneous merely because an additional instruction especially desired to fit the facts of a particular case is not added by the court ex mero motu, in the absence of a timely written request that the instruction be completed as desired.” Brown v. State, 163 Ga. 684 (5) (137 S. E. 31).

4. The other grounds of the motion for new trial can not be determined without a consideration of the evidence, and therefore an affirmance results.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, .0. J., and Gardner, J., conow.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 S.E.2d 548, 73 Ga. App. 567, 1946 Ga. App. LEXIS 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-state-gactapp-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack