Maddox v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Maddox v. State

32 S.E.2d 111, 71 Ga. App. 768, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 217

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 25, 1944

Docket30641.

StatusPublished

This text of 32 S.E.2d 111 (Maddox 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

Maddox v. State, 32 S.E.2d 111, 71 Ga. App. 768, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 217 (Ga. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of robbery, and the jury fixed his punishment “at not less than 2 years and not more than 5 years,” and recommended that his offense be treated as a misdemeanor. His motion for a new trial, embracing the general grounds and one special ground, was overruled and he excepted to that judgment.

The general grounds are expressly abandoned in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error. The special ground alleges that *769 the court erred in charging the law of “admissions,” on the ground, that the charge was not authorized by the evidence. The written statement of the defendant, signed and sworn to by him, contained certain admissions tending to authorize the jury to find that he was guilty of the offense charged. That statement was introduced in evidence and authorized the charge complained of. 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 robbery, and the jury fixed his punishment “at not less than 2 years and not more than 5 years,” and recommended that his offense be treated as a misdemeanor. His motion for a new trial, embracing the general grounds and one special ground, was overruled and he excepted to that judgment.

The general grounds are expressly abandoned in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error. The special ground alleges that *769 the court erred in charging the law of “admissions,” on the ground, that the charge was not authorized by the evidence. The written statement of the defendant, signed and sworn to by him, contained certain admissions tending to authorize the jury to find that he was guilty of the offense charged. That statement was introduced in evidence and authorized the charge complained of. The denial of a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 S.E.2d 111, 71 Ga. App. 768, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maddox-v-state-gactapp-1944.