Miller v. State
69 S.E. 922, 8 Ga. App. 540, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 31
Opinions
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
Miller v. State, 69 S.E. 922, 8 Ga. App. 540, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 31 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).
69 S.E. 922 (Miller v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
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)