Leggett v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Leggett v. State

24 S.E. 165, 97 Ga. 426

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 29, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 24 S.E. 165 (Leggett 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

Leggett v. State, 24 S.E. 165, 97 Ga. 426 (Ga. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Lumpkin, J.

1. The presumption being that the magistrate reduced to writing the statement made by the accused at his commitment trial, and a witness present at that trial having testified affirmatively that he thought this was done, and there being no proof to the contrary, or that the written statement had been lost or destroyed, parol evidence as to what the accused stated was inadmissible. Oliver v. The State, 94 Ga. 83. When such evidence was offered, and objected to on the proper ground, the court ought to have distinctly excluded it, and not merely have remarked, “If that [the written statement] is accessible, this evidence will be excluded.”

2. The error above indicated requires the granting of a new trial, because the evidence, at best, made out an exceedingly weak and doubtful case against the accused. Judgment reversed,.

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

Lumpkin, J.

1. The presumption being that the magistrate reduced to writing the statement made by the accused at his commitment trial, and a witness present at that trial having testified affirmatively that he thought this was done, and there being no proof to the contrary, or that the written statement had been lost or destroyed, parol evidence as to what the accused stated was inadmissible. Oliver v. The State, 94 Ga. 83. When such evidence was offered, and objected to on the proper ground, the court ought to have distinctly excluded it, and not merely have remarked, “If that [the written statement] is accessible, this evidence will be excluded.”

2. The error above indicated requires the granting of a new trial, because the evidence, at best, made out an exceedingly weak and doubtful case against the accused. Judgment reversed,.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 S.E. 165, 97 Ga. 426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leggett-v-state-ga-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack