Lumley v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lumley v. State

2 S.E.2d 518, 59 Ga. App. 903, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 449

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 11, 1939

Docket27487

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 S.E.2d 518 (Lumley 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

Lumley v. State, 2 S.E.2d 518, 59 Ga. App. 903, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 449 (Ga. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. “A new trial will not be granted in a criminal case because of the relationship within the prohibited degrees of a juror to the accused, although such relationship was unknown to the accused and his counsel until after verdict.” Downing v. State, 114 Ga. 30 (39 S. E. 927); Barnes v. State, 17 Ga. App. 266 (2) (86 S. E. 461); Maxwell v. State, 28 Ga. App. 120 (110 S. E. 120); Durham v. State, 41 Ga. App. 421(4) (153 S. E. 222); Dawson v. State, 13 Ga. App. 668 (79 S. E. 745), and cit. Under the quoted ruling the sole special ground of the motion for new trial is without merit.

2. The evidence, while conflicting, authorized the verdict; and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. “A new trial will not be granted in a criminal case because of the relationship within the prohibited degrees of a juror to the accused, although such relationship was unknown to the accused and his counsel until after verdict.” Downing v. State, 114 Ga. 30 (39 S. E. 927); Barnes v. State, 17 Ga. App. 266 (2) (86 S. E. 461); Maxwell v. State, 28 Ga. App. 120 (110 S. E. 120); Durham v. State, 41 Ga. App. 421(4) (153 S. E. 222); Dawson v. State, 13 Ga. App. 668 (79 S. E. 745), and cit. Under the quoted ruling the sole special ground of the motion for new trial is without merit.

2. The evidence, while conflicting, authorized the verdict; and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 S.E.2d 518, 59 Ga. App. 903, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lumley-v-state-gactapp-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack