O'Halloran v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

O'Halloran v. State

97 S.E. 264, 22 Ga. App. 799, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 769

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 7, 1918

Docket9632

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 97 S.E. 264 (O'Halloran 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

O'Halloran v. State, 97 S.E. 264, 22 Ga. App. 799, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 769 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Harwell, J.

1. The excerpts from the charge of the court, complained of in the 1st, 2d and 3d special grounds of the motion for a new trial, standing alone and isolated from the body of .the charge, are subject to criticism, but when'the charge of the court is read in its entirety it can not be said that the instructions therein, as a whole, permitted the jury to find the defendant guilty upon their own belief, or from facts or knowledge “outside of the testimony and the defendant’s statement in the ease.” The excerpts complained of in grounds 4 and 5, when viewed in the light of the entire charge could not have misled the jury. The charge was very full and in' all respects fair to the accused. See Timmons v. State, 14 Ga. App. 802 (6), 803 (82 S. E. 378).

2. The evidence authorized the verdict and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Indictment for violation of prohibition law; from Muscogee superior court—Judge Howard. March 9, 1918. ■

In .the instructions set out in the 1st, 2d and 3d special grounds of the motion for a new trial the court used the expressions, “if you should believe,” and “if you should believe beyond a reasonable doubt,” without adding the words, “from the evidence.” This is complained of in each of these grounds.

George G. Palmer, McGutchen & Bowden, for plaintiff in error. G. F. McLaughlin, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Harwell, J.

1. The excerpts from the charge of the court, complained of in the 1st, 2d and 3d special grounds of the motion for a new trial, standing alone and isolated from the body of .the charge, are subject to criticism, but when'the charge of the court is read in its entirety it can not be said that the instructions therein, as a whole, permitted the jury to find the defendant guilty upon their own belief, or from facts or knowledge “outside of the testimony and the defendant’s statement in the ease.” The excerpts complained of in grounds 4 and 5, when viewed in the light of the entire charge could not have misled the jury. The charge was very full and in' all respects fair to the accused. See Timmons v. State, 14 Ga. App. 802 (6), 803 (82 S. E. 378).

2. The evidence authorized the verdict and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Indictment for violation of prohibition law; from Muscogee superior court—Judge Howard. March 9, 1918. ■

In .the instructions set out in the 1st, 2d and 3d special grounds of the motion for a new trial the court used the expressions, “if you should believe,” and “if you should believe beyond a reasonable doubt,” without adding the words, “from the evidence.” This is complained of in each of these grounds.

George G. Palmer, McGutchen & Bowden, for plaintiff in error. G. F. McLaughlin, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 S.E. 264, 22 Ga. App. 799, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ohalloran-v-state-gactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack