Mays v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mays v. State

166 S.E. 447, 46 Ga. App. 43, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 26

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 16, 1932

Docket22688

StatusPublished

This text of 166 S.E. 447 (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.

Bluebook

Mays v. State, 166 S.E. 447, 46 Ga. App. 43, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 26 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Hooeeb, J.

1. The charge of the court is not subject to the assignment of error thereon, contained in the petition for certiorari, to the effect that it unduly emphasized the fact that the committing magistrate had required the defendant to give bond pursuant to § 683 of the Penal Code. When considered in its entirety, the charge of the court shows that the repetition of this fact was made by the trial judge for the purpose of impressing upon the jury that they should not be influenced by such previous judgment.

2. The excerpt from the charge of the court dealing with the matter of the credibility of the witnesses is a correct statement of the law, and is not rendered erroneous, as contended, by the failure of the court to give in connection therewith certain additional instructions.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict of guilty, no error of law appears, and the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed,.

Broyles, G. J., concurs. MacIntyre, J., not presiding.

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

Hooeeb, J.

1. The charge of the court is not subject to the assignment of error thereon, contained in the petition for certiorari, to the effect that it unduly emphasized the fact that the committing magistrate had required the defendant to give bond pursuant to § 683 of the Penal Code. When considered in its entirety, the charge of the court shows that the repetition of this fact was made by the trial judge for the purpose of impressing upon the jury that they should not be influenced by such previous judgment.

2. The excerpt from the charge of the court dealing with the matter of the credibility of the witnesses is a correct statement of the law, and is not rendered erroneous, as contended, by the failure of the court to give in connection therewith certain additional instructions.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict of guilty, no error of law appears, and the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed,.

Broyles, G. J., concurs. MacIntyre, J., not presiding.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 S.E. 447, 46 Ga. App. 43, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mays-v-state-gactapp-1932.