Owens v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Owens v. State

117 S.E. 119, 30 Ga. App. 108, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 283

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 10, 1923

Docket14184

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 117 S.E. 119 (Owens 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

Owens v. State, 117 S.E. 119, 30 Ga. App. 108, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 283 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The plaintiff in error was indicted for murder, and moved for a change of venue, on the grounds that he could not obtain an impartial jury in the county where the alleged crime was committed, and that there was danger of his being lynched if he should be tried and acquitted. Upon the hearing of the motion the evidence was conflicting on the material issues involved, and it does not appear that the judge abused his discretion in denying the motion. See, in this connection, Crawley v. State, 24 Ga. App. 33 (99 S. E. 705), and citations.

2. The assignment of error in the bill of exceptions, to wit, “movant alleges that the court erred in refusing to permit counsel for movant to prove by Allen C. Clemments that in his opinion there was danger of mob violence in the event that defendant should be acquitted, and movant then and there excepted, and now excepts and assigns same as-error, because the entire hearing was based on evidence which was opinionative, and movant avers that the court erred in failing and refusing to permit counsel for movant to prove the facts above referred to,” is too vague and indefinite to be considered by this court, it not appearing that the witness Clemments had heard the movant’s alleged crime discussed by any of the people of Bibb county, or that he was in a position to judge -of the public sentiment on that subject.

Judgment affirmed.

Luhe and Bloodworth, •/■/., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The plaintiff in error was indicted for murder, and moved for a change of venue, on the grounds that he could not obtain an impartial jury in the county where the alleged crime was committed, and that there was danger of his being lynched if he should be tried and acquitted. Upon the hearing of the motion the evidence was conflicting on the material issues involved, and it does not appear that the judge abused his discretion in denying the motion. See, in this connection, Crawley v. State, 24 Ga. App. 33 (99 S. E. 705), and citations.

2. The assignment of error in the bill of exceptions, to wit, “movant alleges that the court erred in refusing to permit counsel for movant to prove by Allen C. Clemments that in his opinion there was danger of mob violence in the event that defendant should be acquitted, and movant then and there excepted, and now excepts and assigns same as-error, because the entire hearing was based on evidence which was opinionative, and movant avers that the court erred in failing and refusing to permit counsel for movant to prove the facts above referred to,” is too vague and indefinite to be considered by this court, it not appearing that the witness Clemments had heard the movant’s alleged crime discussed by any of the people of Bibb county, or that he was in a position to judge -of the public sentiment on that subject.

Judgment affirmed.

Luhe and Bloodworth, •/■/., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 S.E. 119, 30 Ga. App. 108, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owens-v-state-gactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack