Lanier v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lanier v. State

27 S.E.2d 346, 70 Ga. App. 62, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 241

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 15, 1943

Docket30234.

StatusPublished

This text of 27 S.E.2d 346 (Lanier 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

Lanier v. State, 27 S.E.2d 346, 70 Ga. App. 62, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 241 (Ga. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of poisoning cattle by administering arsenic. His motion for new trial contained the general grounds, and three special grounds: (1) Complaining of the failure of the court to instruct the jury, without a request, upon the law of circumstantial evidence. The ground is without merit, since the evidence adduced was not wholly circumstantial, and there was no appropriate written request for such a charge. (2) Excepting to the court’s omission to charge the jury upon the good *63 character of the accused, who had introduced testimony showing his good character. There was no request for this charge; and therefore the failure to give it was not error. Scarboro v. State, 24 Ga. App. 27 (6), 29 (99 S. E. 637). (3) Merely an elaboration of the general grounds. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence. While there was some conflict in the evidence as to whether the cattle died from arsenic poisoning (as charged in the indictment), the evidence authorized the jury to find that arsenic poison was administered to them by the defendant, and that it caused their deaths. The denial of a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of poisoning cattle by administering arsenic. His motion for new trial contained the general grounds, and three special grounds: (1) Complaining of the failure of the court to instruct the jury, without a request, upon the law of circumstantial evidence. The ground is without merit, since the evidence adduced was not wholly circumstantial, and there was no appropriate written request for such a charge. (2) Excepting to the court’s omission to charge the jury upon the good *63 character of the accused, who had introduced testimony showing his good character. There was no request for this charge; and therefore the failure to give it was not error. Scarboro v. State, 24 Ga. App. 27 (6), 29 (99 S. E. 637). (3) Merely an elaboration of the general grounds. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence. While there was some conflict in the evidence as to whether the cattle died from arsenic poisoning (as charged in the indictment), the evidence authorized the jury to find that arsenic poison was administered to them by the defendant, and that it caused their deaths. The denial of a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 S.E.2d 346, 70 Ga. App. 62, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lanier-v-state-gactapp-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack