Mays v. State
This text of 89 S.E. 174 (Mays 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.
Opinions
1. The evidence authorized the verdict.
2. The only special ground of the motion for a new trial which is relied on in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error.relates to an alleged improper reference to the accused by counsel for the State in his argument to the jury. The expression objected - to did not include any statement of fact or relate to extrinsic matters not introduced in evidence, but, in the opinion of the majority of the court, was within the purview of legitimate argument, under the particular facts of this case, and amounted to no more than a metaphorical allusion, deducible from the evidence.
3. The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
89 S.E. 174, 18 Ga. App. 241, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mays-v-state-gactapp-1916.