Mobbs v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mobbs v. State

150 S.E. 432, 40 Ga. App. 510, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 617

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 12, 1929

Docket20020

StatusPublished

This text of 150 S.E. 432 (Mobbs 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

Mobbs v. State, 150 S.E. 432, 40 Ga. App. 510, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 617 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

In the light of the charge as a whole and the facts of the case (the court having fully and explicitly instructed the jury upon the law of justifiable homicide, including the fears of a reasonable man), none of the excerpts from the charge, complained of in the motion for a' new trial, show material error. Isolated fragments of a charge should always be considered in the light of the charge as a whole. The other special grounds of the motion fail to show cause for a reversal of the judgment. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur. W. W. Mundy, for plaintiff in error. S. W. Ragsdale, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Bloodworth, J.

In the light of the charge as a whole and the facts of the case (the court having fully and explicitly instructed the jury upon the law of justifiable homicide, including the fears of a reasonable man), none of the excerpts from the charge, complained of in the motion for a' new trial, show material error. Isolated fragments of a charge should always be considered in the light of the charge as a whole. The other special grounds of the motion fail to show cause for a reversal of the judgment. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur. W. W. Mundy, for plaintiff in error. S. W. Ragsdale, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 S.E. 432, 40 Ga. App. 510, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mobbs-v-state-gactapp-1929.