Middlebrooks v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Middlebrooks v. State

94 S.E. 80, 21 Ga. App. 79, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 434

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 30, 1917

Docket9156

StatusPublished

This text of 94 S.E. 80 (Middlebrooks 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

Middlebrooks v. State, 94 S.E. 80, 21 Ga. App. 79, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 434 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

1. The following excerpt from the charge to the jury is excepted to: “I charge you that the defendant has seen fit to put his character in issue before you. This, under the law, he had a right to do. I charge you that good character is a substantive fact, and goes before you for your consideration along with the other evidence in the case. As to whether or not he has shown his character to be good is a matter the court can not pass upon. It is a matter for you to determine, like any other fact in the case. It is for your consideration. You have a right to consider the testimony as to his character, not merely when his guilt is doubtful, but I charge you that testimony of good character may of itself generate a doubt; but when the guilt of the accused is made to appear beyond a reasonable [doubt] to the satisfaction of the jury, they are authorized to convict regardless of good character. These are questions for you to pass upon.” The plaintiff in error can not complain of this charge,.it being more favorable to him than he was entitled to under the law. Brazil v. State, 117 Ga. 32 (43 S. E. 460); Fordham v. State, 125 Ga. 791 (54 S. E. 694); Maddox v. State, 9 Ga. App. 488 (71 S. E. 498); Hill v. State, 18 Ga. App. 259 (89 S. E. 351). " The contrary'ruling in Taylor v. State, 13 Ga. App. 715 (79 S. E. 924), relied on by counsel for the plaintiff in error, was expressly overruled in Hill v. State, supra.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

.Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, P. J.

1. The following excerpt from the charge to the jury is excepted to: “I charge you that the defendant has seen fit to put his character in issue before you. This, under the law, he had a right to do. I charge you that good character is a substantive fact, and goes before you for your consideration along with the other evidence in the case. As to whether or not he has shown his character to be good is a matter the court can not pass upon. It is a matter for you to determine, like any other fact in the case. It is for your consideration. You have a right to consider the testimony as to his character, not merely when his guilt is doubtful, but I charge you that testimony of good character may of itself generate a doubt; but when the guilt of the accused is made to appear beyond a reasonable [doubt] to the satisfaction of the jury, they are authorized to convict regardless of good character. These are questions for you to pass upon.” The plaintiff in error can not complain of this charge,.it being more favorable to him than he was entitled to under the law. Brazil v. State, 117 Ga. 32 (43 S. E. 460); Fordham v. State, 125 Ga. 791 (54 S. E. 694); Maddox v. State, 9 Ga. App. 488 (71 S. E. 498); Hill v. State, 18 Ga. App. 259 (89 S. E. 351). " The contrary'ruling in Taylor v. State, 13 Ga. App. 715 (79 S. E. 924), relied on by counsel for the plaintiff in error, was expressly overruled in Hill v. State, supra.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

.Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 S.E. 80, 21 Ga. App. 79, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/middlebrooks-v-state-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack