Lindsey v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Lindsey v. State

36 S.E. 62, 111 Ga. 833, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 783

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided May 12, 1900·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Lumpkin, P. J.

1. It is too late, after verdict, to complain that the proper questions were not propounded to jurors while they were being examined on their voir dire. See Smith v. State, 63 Ga. 168-9. And were it otherwise, a new trial should not be granted for such a cause when the questions actually propounded were, in substance, the same as those prescribed by the statute, and did not vary therefrom save in immaterial respects as to phraseology.

2. The evidence in this case, though entirely circumstantial, was sufficiently strong and conclusive to warrant a finding that the accused was guilty and to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Fish, J., absent.

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

Lumpkin, P. J.

1. It is too late, after verdict, to complain that the proper questions were not propounded to jurors while they were being examined on their voir dire. See Smith v. State, 63 Ga. 168-9. And were it otherwise, a new trial should not be granted for such a cause when the questions actually propounded were, in substance, the same as those prescribed by the statute, and did not vary therefrom save in immaterial respects as to phraseology.

2. The evidence in this case, though entirely circumstantial, was sufficiently strong and conclusive to warrant a finding that the accused was guilty and to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Fish, J., absent.

Lindsey v. State, 36 S.E. 62, 111 Ga. 833, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 783 (Ga. 1900).

Pincite

36 S.E. 62 (Lindsey v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related