Johnson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Johnson v. State

147 S.E.2d 878, 113 Ga. App. 361, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 1066

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 23, 1966

Docket41739

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 147 S.E.2d 878 (Johnson 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

Johnson v. State, 147 S.E.2d 878, 113 Ga. App. 361, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 1066 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

1. “The refusal to declare a mistrial on account of a voluntary answer of a witness is not reversible error unless the trial court fails to apply proper corrective measures.” Haynes v. State, 80 Ga. App. 99 (2) (55 SE2d 646). In the present case the court, after overruling the defendant’s motion for mistrial, instructed the jury to disregard the testimony which had the effect of putting the character of the defendant in issue. Under the decisions - of this court and the Supreme Court, exemplified by Osteen v. State, 83 Ga. App. 378, 381 (63 SE2d 692); and Manchester v. State, 171 Ga. 121 (7) (155 SE 11), the grant of a mistrial is largely within the discretion of the trial court and such discretion will not be disturbed unless abused. No abuse of such discretion is shown in the present case.

2. The evidence adduced on the trial of the case, while not without conflict, was sufficient to authorize the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Hall and Deen, JJ., concur. *362 Louis H. Mitchell, for appellant. W. B. Skipworth, Jr., Solicitor General, for appellee.

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

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

1. “The refusal to declare a mistrial on account of a voluntary answer of a witness is not reversible error unless the trial court fails to apply proper corrective measures.” Haynes v. State, 80 Ga. App. 99 (2) (55 SE2d 646). In the present case the court, after overruling the defendant’s motion for mistrial, instructed the jury to disregard the testimony which had the effect of putting the character of the defendant in issue. Under the decisions - of this court and the Supreme Court, exemplified by Osteen v. State, 83 Ga. App. 378, 381 (63 SE2d 692); and Manchester v. State, 171 Ga. 121 (7) (155 SE 11), the grant of a mistrial is largely within the discretion of the trial court and such discretion will not be disturbed unless abused. No abuse of such discretion is shown in the present case.

2. The evidence adduced on the trial of the case, while not without conflict, was sufficient to authorize the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Hall and Deen, JJ., concur. *362 Louis H. Mitchell, for appellant. W. B. Skipworth, Jr., Solicitor General, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 S.E.2d 878, 113 Ga. App. 361, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 1066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-state-gactapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack