Jones v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Jones v. State

83 S.E. 1099, 15 Ga. App. 641, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 16

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 20, 1915

Docket6141

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 83 S.E. 1099 (Jones 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

Jones v. State, 83 S.E. 1099, 15 Ga. App. 641, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 16 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

1. When the charge of the court is considered in its entirety, it is clear that the excerpts objected to did not harm the defendant. Each of the legal propositions stated by the court is correct in the abstract, and applicable to the evidence. Hollis v. State, 13 Ga. App. 307 (79 S. E. 85).

2. The charge of the court substantially covered all the issues with sufficient fullness, and was clear, correct, and impartial; and if any fuller or more explicit instructions were desired upon any feature of the case, developed by the evidence or the defendant’s statement, a written request therefor should have been submitted. Hollis v. State, supra; Saunders v. State, ante, 344 (83 S. E. 148) ; Shelton v. State, ante, 341 (83 S. E. 152) ; Bird v. State, 142 Ga. 596 (83 S. E. 238).

3. The ground of the motion for a new trial, based upon alleged newly discovered evidence, not having been referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, is considered abandoned.

4. The evidence authorized the verdict.' There was no error of law, and the judgment refusing a new trial is ' Affirmed.

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

Broyles, J.

1. When the charge of the court is considered in its entirety, it is clear that the excerpts objected to did not harm the defendant. Each of the legal propositions stated by the court is correct in the abstract, and applicable to the evidence. Hollis v. State, 13 Ga. App. 307 (79 S. E. 85).

2. The charge of the court substantially covered all the issues with sufficient fullness, and was clear, correct, and impartial; and if any fuller or more explicit instructions were desired upon any feature of the case, developed by the evidence or the defendant’s statement, a written request therefor should have been submitted. Hollis v. State, supra; Saunders v. State, ante, 344 (83 S. E. 148) ; Shelton v. State, ante, 341 (83 S. E. 152) ; Bird v. State, 142 Ga. 596 (83 S. E. 238).

3. The ground of the motion for a new trial, based upon alleged newly discovered evidence, not having been referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, is considered abandoned.

4. The evidence authorized the verdict.' There was no error of law, and the judgment refusing a new trial is ' Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 S.E. 1099, 15 Ga. App. 641, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-state-gactapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack