O'Neal v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

O'Neal v. State

113 S.E. 43, 29 Ga. App. 51, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 47

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 25, 1922

Docket13724

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 113 S.E. 43 (O'Neal 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'Neal v. State, 113 S.E. 43, 29 Ga. App. 51, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 47 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinions

Bloodworth, J.

1. The only special ground of the motion for a new trial is based upon the alleged error of the judge in refusing to continue the case because of the absence -of counsel for the defendant. Under the facts of the case we cannot say that the judge abused his discretion in refusing a continuance. Indeed, the motion is defective in not showing: (a) that “the accused could not go safely to trial without the services of such absent counsel;” (6) that “he expects his services at the next term;” (c) that “said application is not made for delay only.” See Civil Code (1910), § 5718, Penal Code, § 990; Wall v. State, 126 Ga. 86 (1) (54 S. E. 815).

2. There is ample evidence to support the finding of the jury, and the judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., concurs.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. The only special ground of the motion for a new trial is based upon the alleged error of the judge in refusing to continue the case because of the absence -of counsel for the defendant. Under the facts of the case we cannot say that the judge abused his discretion in refusing a continuance. Indeed, the motion is defective in not showing: (a) that “the accused could not go safely to trial without the services of such absent counsel;” (6) that “he expects his services at the next term;” (c) that “said application is not made for delay only.” See Civil Code (1910), § 5718, Penal Code, § 990; Wall v. State, 126 Ga. 86 (1) (54 S. E. 815).

2. There is ample evidence to support the finding of the jury, and the judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 S.E. 43, 29 Ga. App. 51, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneal-v-state-gactapp-1922.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack