Jordan v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Jordan v. State

142 S.E. 748, 38 Ga. App. 84, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 47

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 10, 1928

Docket18689

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 142 S.E. 748 (Jordan 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

Jordan v. State, 142 S.E. 748, 38 Ga. App. 84, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 47 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. “Under repeated decisions of this court and of the Supreme Court, each special ground of a motion for a new trial must be complete within itself; and when so incomplete as to require a reference to the brief of the evidence, or to some other portion of the record, in order to determine what was the alleged error and whether such error was material, the ground will not be considered by the reviewing court.” McCall v. State, 23 Ga. App. 770 (99 S. E. 471); Franklin v. State, 28 Ga. App. 460 (1 b) (112 S. E. 170). Under this ruling the first two grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial are too defective to raise any question for the consideration of this court.

2. The charge upon the subject of alibi, in the absence of a request for a fuller charge thereon, is not error for any reason assigned. See, in this connection, Hansom v. State, 2 Ga. App. 826, 827 (59 S. E. 101); Eugee v. State, 159 Ga. 604 (13) (126 S. E. 471).

3. The last special ground of the motion for a new trial is not referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error and is treated as abandoned.

4. The evidence was in acute conflict as to whether the offense was committed in Alabama or in Polk county, Georgia, but there was some evidence that authorized the jury to determine that question in favor of the State.

5. The verdict was authorized by the evidence and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. “Under repeated decisions of this court and of the Supreme Court, each special ground of a motion for a new trial must be complete within itself; and when so incomplete as to require a reference to the brief of the evidence, or to some other portion of the record, in order to determine what was the alleged error and whether such error was material, the ground will not be considered by the reviewing court.” McCall v. State, 23 Ga. App. 770 (99 S. E. 471); Franklin v. State, 28 Ga. App. 460 (1 b) (112 S. E. 170). Under this ruling the first two grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial are too defective to raise any question for the consideration of this court.

2. The charge upon the subject of alibi, in the absence of a request for a fuller charge thereon, is not error for any reason assigned. See, in this connection, Hansom v. State, 2 Ga. App. 826, 827 (59 S. E. 101); Eugee v. State, 159 Ga. 604 (13) (126 S. E. 471).

3. The last special ground of the motion for a new trial is not referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error and is treated as abandoned.

4. The evidence was in acute conflict as to whether the offense was committed in Alabama or in Polk county, Georgia, but there was some evidence that authorized the jury to determine that question in favor of the State.

5. The verdict was authorized by the evidence and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 S.E. 748, 38 Ga. App. 84, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jordan-v-state-gactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack