Johnson v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Johnson v. State

52 S.E. 880, 124 Ga. 656, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 574

DecidedJanuary 12, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 52 S.E. 880 (Johnson 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

Johnson v. State, 52 S.E. 880, 124 Ga. 656, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 574 (Ga. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Cobb, P. J.

Johnson and two others were arraigned upon an accusation charging them with the offense of riot. The act of riot alleged in the accusation was, surrounding the house of the prosecutor, throwing walnuts against the house, firing off pistols, and shouting to the occupants, if they didn’t like it, to come out and show themselves. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendant assigns error upon the refusal of the judge to grant a, new trial.

The court admitted evidence to the effect that at the time of the alleged riotous conduct the wife of the prosecutor was so badly frightened that she fainted, and further admitted in evidence a. sack containing rocks and walnuts, shown by a witness to have been picked up around the house the morning after the alleged riot. The objection to all this evidence was that it was irrelevant. There-was no merit whatever in this assignment of error. It is apparent that the evidence threw light on the conduct of the accused at the time of the alleged riot. Persons in the house claimed to have-recognized the rioters through a crack in one of the windows. One ground of the motion for a new trial is alleged newly discovered evidence as to the size of this crack, it being contended that under this-evidence it was impossible for the witnesses to have seen what they claimed to have seen. This evidence was impeaching in its character. The discretion of a trial judge exercised in passing upon a motion for a new trial based upon a ground of this character, in the absence of anything indicating an abuse of such discretion, will not. be interfered with. The evidence authorized the verdict, and no-sufficient reason has been shown for reversing the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Cobb, P. J.

Johnson and two others were arraigned upon an accusation charging them with the offense of riot. The act of riot alleged in the accusation was, surrounding the house of the prosecutor, throwing walnuts against the house, firing off pistols, and shouting to the occupants, if they didn’t like it, to come out and show themselves. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendant assigns error upon the refusal of the judge to grant a, new trial.

The court admitted evidence to the effect that at the time of the alleged riotous conduct the wife of the prosecutor was so badly frightened that she fainted, and further admitted in evidence a. sack containing rocks and walnuts, shown by a witness to have been picked up around the house the morning after the alleged riot. The objection to all this evidence was that it was irrelevant. There-was no merit whatever in this assignment of error. It is apparent that the evidence threw light on the conduct of the accused at the time of the alleged riot. Persons in the house claimed to have-recognized the rioters through a crack in one of the windows. One ground of the motion for a new trial is alleged newly discovered evidence as to the size of this crack, it being contended that under this-evidence it was impossible for the witnesses to have seen what they claimed to have seen. This evidence was impeaching in its character. The discretion of a trial judge exercised in passing upon a motion for a new trial based upon a ground of this character, in the absence of anything indicating an abuse of such discretion, will not. be interfered with. The evidence authorized the verdict, and no-sufficient reason has been shown for reversing the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 S.E. 880, 124 Ga. 656, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-state-ga-1906.