Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Miller v. State

Miller v. State

69 S.E. 922, 8 Ga. App. 540, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 31
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 17, 1911
Docket3102
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 69 S.E. 922 (Miller 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
Miller v. State, 69 S.E. 922, 8 Ga. App. 540, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 31 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Opinions

Hill, C. J.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of intoxicating liquors, where only one sale was proved, it was improper for the solicitor-general, in concluding the argument, to refer to the defendant as “this notorious character, this notorious blind tiger;” and on objection made to such language by the defendant’s counsel, it was the duty of the court to reprimand counsel and instruct the jury that they should disregard the improper language so used by the solicitor-general.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Josey v. State
79 S.E.2d 64 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
Trammell v. Atlanta Coach Co.
181 S.E. 315 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Reese v. State
87 S.E. 717 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
Harris v. State
72 S.E. 516 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
69 S.E. 922, 8 Ga. App. 540, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-state-gactapp-1911.