Ogletree v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ogletree v. State

96 S.E. 1049, 22 Ga. App. 628, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 640

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 8, 1918

Docket9885

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 96 S.E. 1049 (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, 96 S.E. 1049, 22 Ga. App. 628, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 640 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Brovees, P. J.

1. Under the evidence submitted on the defendant’s motion for a continuance of the case, on the ground that he was physically unable.-to undergo the strain of a trial, it does not appear that the trial judge abused his discretion in overruling the motion. Moreover, the record shows that the defendant was present in court when the motion for a continuance was made, and the judge had the right to consider, in connection with the testimony adduced, the apparent physical condition of the defendant.

2. The court did not err in giving to the jury the following instruction: “The law does not require that before you find the defendant guilty you must find him guilty to a mathematical certainty; moral or reasonable certainty is all that the law requires.”

3-. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in refusing the grant of a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth and Barwell, JJ., concur.

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