Ogletree v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ogletree v. State

88 S.E. 751, 18 Ga. App. 41, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 105

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 1, 1916

Docket6845

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 88 S.E. 751 (Ogletree 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

Ogletree v. State, 88 S.E. 751, 18 Ga. App. 41, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 105 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

1. On the trial of one charged with the unlawful use of profane and abusive language, the burden is upon the State to show that it was used without provocation, but it is not necessary for the State to show more than that there was not sufficient provocation; and in such eases the sufficiency or the insufficiency of the provocation is a matter for the jury.

2. Proof may be offered to establish any relevant fact which tends to establish the improbability or falsity of the testimony introduced in the trial. Consequently, in the present case it would have been proper to show (by proving all facts tending to induce the jury to that conclusion) that the defendant and the person to whom it was alleged he addressed certain opprobrious words and abusive language after a personal difficulty “made friends with each other” immediately before the time of the alleged use of the opprobrious words. This circumstance might strongly indicate that the language alleged was. in fact not used. However, it was not for this reason error to refuse to permit the question, “D.o you know whether they made friends after this difficulty?” This question did not confine the inquiry to the res gestee of the transaction or tend to elicit more than the mere conclusion of the witness; and his [42]*42opinion was not admissible without a statement of the facts and circumstances from which he concluded that the parties had made friends.

Decided May 1, 1916.

Accusation of misdemeanor; from city court of Greensboro — Judge Sibley. June 17, 1915.

Alvin G. Goluclce, for plaintiff in error. James Davison, solicitor, contra.

3. The evidence seems to preponderate in favor of the defendant, but the jurors are the exclusive judges as to this, and their finding, approved by the trial judge, in the absence of any error in the trial, can not be disturbed. Judgment affirmed.

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

Russell, C. J.

1. On the trial of one charged with the unlawful use of profane and abusive language, the burden is upon the State to show that it was used without provocation, but it is not necessary for the State to show more than that there was not sufficient provocation; and in such eases the sufficiency or the insufficiency of the provocation is a matter for the jury.

2. Proof may be offered to establish any relevant fact which tends to establish the improbability or falsity of the testimony introduced in the trial. Consequently, in the present case it would have been proper to show (by proving all facts tending to induce the jury to that conclusion) that the defendant and the person to whom it was alleged he addressed certain opprobrious words and abusive language after a personal difficulty “made friends with each other” immediately before the time of the alleged use of the opprobrious words. This circumstance might strongly indicate that the language alleged was. in fact not used. However, it was not for this reason error to refuse to permit the question, “D.o you know whether they made friends after this difficulty?” This question did not confine the inquiry to the res gestee of the transaction or tend to elicit more than the mere conclusion of the witness; and his [42]*42opinion was not admissible without a statement of the facts and circumstances from which he concluded that the parties had made friends.

Decided May 1, 1916.

Accusation of misdemeanor; from city court of Greensboro — Judge Sibley. June 17, 1915.

Alvin G. Goluclce, for plaintiff in error. James Davison, solicitor, contra.

3. The evidence seems to preponderate in favor of the defendant, but the jurors are the exclusive judges as to this, and their finding, approved by the trial judge, in the absence of any error in the trial, can not be disturbed. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.E. 751, 18 Ga. App. 41, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ogletree-v-state-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack