Kitchens v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Kitchens v. State

131 S.E. 295, 34 Ga. App. 779, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 25

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 12, 1926

Docket16947

StatusPublished

This text of 131 S.E. 295 (Kitchens 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

Kitchens v. State, 131 S.E. 295, 34 Ga. App. 779, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 25 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodwobth, J.

1. The court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled the motion for a continuance.

2. For no reason alleged did the court err in admitting the evidence of which complaint is made in special grounds 2 and 3 of the motion for a new trial. This evidence was admissible to show intent or motive. Fraser v. State, 55 Ga. 326 (1) ; Everett v. State, 62 Ga. 70 (2); Harrell v. State, ante, 577; Reese v. State, ante, 600, and cases cited. Moreover, even if the admission of this evidence on direct examination was error, it would not require the grant of a new trial, for practically [780]*780the same evidence from this witness was brought out by counsel for defendant on cross-examination.

Decided January 12, 1926. W, 0. Cooper Jr., for plaintiff in error. Charles H. Garrett, solicitor-general, contra.

3. Eor no reason alleged was it error to allow the evidence, the admission of which is objected to in special grounds 4 and 5, to go to the jury.

4. There is ample evidence to support the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodwobth, J.

1. The court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled the motion for a continuance.

2. For no reason alleged did the court err in admitting the evidence of which complaint is made in special grounds 2 and 3 of the motion for a new trial. This evidence was admissible to show intent or motive. Fraser v. State, 55 Ga. 326 (1) ; Everett v. State, 62 Ga. 70 (2); Harrell v. State, ante, 577; Reese v. State, ante, 600, and cases cited. Moreover, even if the admission of this evidence on direct examination was error, it would not require the grant of a new trial, for practically [780]*780the same evidence from this witness was brought out by counsel for defendant on cross-examination.

Decided January 12, 1926. W, 0. Cooper Jr., for plaintiff in error. Charles H. Garrett, solicitor-general, contra.

3. Eor no reason alleged was it error to allow the evidence, the admission of which is objected to in special grounds 4 and 5, to go to the jury.

4. There is ample evidence to support the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 S.E. 295, 34 Ga. App. 779, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kitchens-v-state-gactapp-1926.