Johnson v. State

135 S.E. 492, 36 Ga. App. 127, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 821
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 9, 1926·No. 17629·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The accused was being tried for a violation of the prohibition law. At the outset of the trial the solicitor of the court asked a witness for the State the following question: “Has this defendant, Nathaniel Johnson, ever been convicted before for violating the prohibition law?” The answer of the witness was: “Yes, he has been convicted twice before this for violating the prohibition law.” Counsel for the defendant immediately objected to the question and answer and moved for a mistrial on the grounds that the evidence was improper, illegal, and prejudicial to the accused, and that by said question and answer the State, had put in issue the defendant’s character, which had not been put in issue by him. The court, without reprimanding the solicitor, excluded the question and answer, and instructed the jury not to consider them, as the defendant had not put his character in issue, and denied the motion for a mistrial. The refusal to grant a mistrial was error, and requires another hearing of the case.

Judgment reversed.

Luke, J., concurs. Blood-worth, J., absent on account of illness.

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

Johnson v. State, 135 S.E. 492, 36 Ga. App. 127, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 821 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

135 S.E. 492 (Johnson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brown v. State
165 S.E.2d 185 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1968)
Stanley v. State
96 S.E.2d 195 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1956)
Smith v. State
69 S.E.2d 281 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
Flournoy v. State
61 S.E.2d 556 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1950)
Haynes v. State
55 S.E.2d 646 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1949)
Richardson v. State
152 S.E. 599 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)