Mitchell v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mitchell v. State

173 S.E.2d 709, 121 Ga. App. 382, 1970 Ga. App. LEXIS 1231

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 26, 1970

Docket45037

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 173 S.E.2d 709 (Mitchell 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

Mitchell v. State, 173 S.E.2d 709, 121 Ga. App. 382, 1970 Ga. App. LEXIS 1231 (Ga. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Jordan, Presiding Judge.

In this appeal from a conviction and sentence for uttering a forged check error is asserted solely on instructions to the jury inviting attention to the interest of the accused in the outcome of the prosecution as a matter for consideration in determining the degree of credibility to be accorded to his testimony. It is conceded that the ■ instructions as given substantially follow the suggested instructions published in Hudson v. State, 108 Ga. App. 192, 199 (132 SE2d 508, 100 ALR2d 1395), except for the omission of the next to the last sentence. These instructions are in accord with the general rule, although there is authority in some outside jurisdictions to the contrary. See 23A CJS 646, Criminal Law, § 1263. Having given careful consideration to the reasons urged by the appellant for declaring the instructions as given in the present case to be harmful error, including the cases relied upon from other jurisdictions, we adhere to the views expressed in the Hudson case, supra.

Judgment affirmed. Eberhardt and Pannell, JJ., concur.

Margaret Hopkins, Jess H. Watson, for appellant. Lends B. Slaton, District Attorney, Tony H. Hight, Joel M. Feldman, for appellee.

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

Jordan, Presiding Judge.

In this appeal from a conviction and sentence for uttering a forged check error is asserted solely on instructions to the jury inviting attention to the interest of the accused in the outcome of the prosecution as a matter for consideration in determining the degree of credibility to be accorded to his testimony. It is conceded that the ■ instructions as given substantially follow the suggested instructions published in Hudson v. State, 108 Ga. App. 192, 199 (132 SE2d 508, 100 ALR2d 1395), except for the omission of the next to the last sentence. These instructions are in accord with the general rule, although there is authority in some outside jurisdictions to the contrary. See 23A CJS 646, Criminal Law, § 1263. Having given careful consideration to the reasons urged by the appellant for declaring the instructions as given in the present case to be harmful error, including the cases relied upon from other jurisdictions, we adhere to the views expressed in the Hudson case, supra.

Judgment affirmed. Eberhardt and Pannell, JJ., concur.

Margaret Hopkins, Jess H. Watson, for appellant. Lends B. Slaton, District Attorney, Tony H. Hight, Joel M. Feldman, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 S.E.2d 709, 121 Ga. App. 382, 1970 Ga. App. LEXIS 1231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-state-gactapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack