Lee v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Lee v. State

84 S.E.2d 353, 211 Ga. 170

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 13, 1954

Docket18718

StatusPublished

This text of 84 S.E.2d 353 (Lee v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lee v. State, 84 S.E.2d 353, 211 Ga. 170 (Ga. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Mobley, Justice.

1. The preliminary evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie foundation for the admission of statements made by the ■ deceased and offered by the State as dying declarations; and the trial court did not err, as complained of in the first and second special grounds - o'f the motion for new trial, in admitting the above evidence. Mitchell v. State, 71 Ga. 128 (2b); Varnedoe v. State, 75 Ga. 181 (1) (58 Am. R. 465); Bryant v. State, 80 Ga. 272 (1) (4 S. E. 853); Hawkins v. State, 141 Ga. 212 (3) (80 S. E. 711); Clements v. State, 141 Ga. 667 (1) (81 S. E. 1117); Kalb v. State, 195 Ga. 544 (4) (25 S. E. 2d 24); Weaver v. State, 200 Ga. 598 (2) (37 S. E. 2d 802); Davis v. State, 204 Ga. 467 (1) (50 S. E. 2d 604).

2. The third special ground, complaining of an excerpt from the charge of the court, not having been argued in this court or insisted on in the brief of the plaintiff in error, will be treated as abandoned. Code § 6-1308; Rosborough v. State, 209 Ga. 362 (4) (72 S. E. 2d 717).

3. The evidence authorized the verdict of the jury finding the defendant “ guilty of murder, and the trial court did not err in denying his amended motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Head, J., who dissents.

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

Mobley, Justice.

1. The preliminary evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie foundation for the admission of statements made by the ■ deceased and offered by the State as dying declarations; and the trial court did not err, as complained of in the first and second special grounds - o'f the motion for new trial, in admitting the above evidence. Mitchell v. State, 71 Ga. 128 (2b); Varnedoe v. State, 75 Ga. 181 (1) (58 Am. R. 465); Bryant v. State, 80 Ga. 272 (1) (4 S. E. 853); Hawkins v. State, 141 Ga. 212 (3) (80 S. E. 711); Clements v. State, 141 Ga. 667 (1) (81 S. E. 1117); Kalb v. State, 195 Ga. 544 (4) (25 S. E. 2d 24); Weaver v. State, 200 Ga. 598 (2) (37 S. E. 2d 802); Davis v. State, 204 Ga. 467 (1) (50 S. E. 2d 604).

2. The third special ground, complaining of an excerpt from the charge of the court, not having been argued in this court or insisted on in the brief of the plaintiff in error, will be treated as abandoned. Code § 6-1308; Rosborough v. State, 209 Ga. 362 (4) (72 S. E. 2d 717).

3. The evidence authorized the verdict of the jury finding the defendant “ guilty of murder, and the trial court did not err in denying his amended motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Head, J., who dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 S.E.2d 353, 211 Ga. 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-state-ga-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack